n 





c c cc 

C c ccc 
c cC 





c 


cC 




c 


c 




r c 


< c 


n 


tr 


CC 

c 


^ 


( 




i^. ; "48E 


c< 


BM 


c ■ ^K 

£-1 




~~ ~c£2 


ii 


£ 


<CSS: 


tr *- *• 





r: cccc j^c 


•■ 


cccr <r^ 


*c<f 


^ CCCC C 


^ 


r ccc<: c c 


c* 


ccxc c< 


CJC 


<-ccc c 


CC 


<ZCL Cc 


CC 


«:QCC Cc 


CC 


cccc cc 


Cj 


c«l-«cc -^ 


< <: 


<<zxx CC 


CC 


c<,'Cc C< 


CC 


c^r^ic <iV- 


ccscc <r 


CC 


C«C7<«CC Cc 


c 


CC«A. C 


cX 


CCf«iC« c 




cc/ascc c 


- r^ 


ccstSrc 9 


cC 


CC(S[T JTi 


(< 


Cd'CCC.C.' 


cc 


rCCIctCC Cl< 


c: 


«C^cc cx< 


c 


l «src<£.c «i 


«C 


<r cccc c 


< 4 


CC'.CCCC < 


' <C < 



X' CCCC c vC 

CO (CC( 

c cccc 

.c?cco 



CCC< 

SS ■ 
<■ <cc c c * 

c ccc c c c 

ccccc 

cccc cc ■« 
( r CC cc 

< CC Cc 
< c C cc 
c <_^ cc 

< c c < 



;; o v cc cc 



cc 

c«C <i<C 5 

. ede c 

CXIC C 



CC CC c 

cC<X C 
d«C2CC c 

cr-d cc < 

c c: c c 
C.CLCVC 



* . 



<^CC0E,C ccc- 

c c c -<d c cc 

c c/'C C CO 

cc crc:: ^ 
:c C^ cc 
;.CCC CCC 
- CC ccc 
c< c: c cc 



<f C C-C. C c< 

c cc c 

cc<^.<< 

C ^C c 

c cere c 

^ c ccc 

C ( 



C r cc 

•CC CC 



cr c c 



: cc 

^ C fc 

CC 

^CC 
CC 

c^ 

c cc c 

: cc 
c c 
CC ( 
CC < 

cc 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

®fmp«P-V/ ©qojrtgiii !fo. 



UMTED STATED OF AMERICA. 



c c c 





c: Qcr cccc 


< 


c c r_^: 




cc CC 




cC CC 




tc / c ■ «fc c 


cc 


CC CI c 


c 


c^c 


cc '- 


c:c 


c 


c cc 


CC 


v <■< CC 


c< 


cc 


cc 


cc V 


cc 


< < 



<S^CT, 



: ccc 
c ccc 

C c C . 

c cc . 

c CC i 

CCC < 
CCC 

ccc < 

C CC 

■- •■ c 
c cc 

< c < 



C CC 
c cc 

Cc CC 



t C <;c<! 

C r<- 




< C 

'■ c < 

»c 



c c 

b cc 
oc 

CC 
cc 

cc 
cc < 

CC 4 

ex - 

fC 

CC < 

c cc c 

CC cr 
CC c 

c CC c 

CC c 



«CSl 



c«rc 



Ace «C «G 
c ^ 

C «C 



c c. 
c c 



.. 





v CC 




< CC 



„ -ecc 

, <2~ec 
c 

C 

C CCC 

c c 

- c cc 



ss-ac 



c ex 



si 



; C«^c C 

1 cX3CCcc< 

t c€« 

- cc crcciv * 



C CX^CC* 

^«L Cc a 
<C ccc c< 
^CC C<£vCc 
CC CCc 
cc cCc« 
CC CCcr 
c< .<: cc< ■< 

ccc cc. a 

5CC cc/cc 

ccc ctcc 

^Cx cc .-.- 



c cr 

c cc 

CC 

v CC 

^' c< 
CC 

<^ cc 

c cc 

cc 

cc 



*£ ' c c 

*C c C<~ 

< CC< 



cc cc 
c < . c 



CCCc c 
cc • 

C 

cc cc < 

e c cc 

C, c C cc 

CCC C QC 



: CCCC (CC 
CCCC «jC 

CCCC ccc 

f ^C cc .c cc 
Z CC Cv cc 

OC C* . CLC 

cc_ cc cc 

' r^^'CC ^ ; 



C< cc <L cc ccc. cc. 

*<" ccc: CC CCcccvCC 

c c cc c<£ s c cc 



c c c cr c<ox 



ccccc 
c cc CXCCC 



CC ccx< 
CC i c « 

cc < ex 
ex 

«c< 

c< < c - 



C ccccc 
c c g: < 

<JC<J cc 



Cc C x&xc 

c «£ 

5 ccc 

CC \c 
CX^C . 
cc cc 
cccc 

cc cc 

cc cc 
cc cc 



C CC 
C cc 

J? -<: tc 

T cC 

* XXE-i 

e r c eo 
S C ccv 



^cc 

JQC 

c Cc < 

fee 



xt^cc 



m cc c c co 

m?f cc c c cV 

pi cc CkCCCc 

^S/v^C-CC^ 



s c c ccC CXTc 
c < cc;. c c cxr « 
^c CSL<L-.C^r« 

C • c cr <: C car 

C v CC v c CC v 

C CCCCCcCc 
CCT: ecc 
:c ' - . cc; c c 
c C cc 

c c cc 

C c ccj C 

c ^ c cc c 
: c cc c 



ex 

c c 

<■ C c re 

S fC 
CO. 

cc 

C v 

c <<• 

' ■ 

c «^ 

cc 



- ccc 
c c c 

C Cv 



c <aot:vc 

CC X3CCCC 

cc ccc cc 

CC CCCcc 

CC CCCm 

CCCCCjC 

^cxocrcc 



-Qcoc^: 

- -C CCC< c • 

:c ccccc 
:c: ccscc 

cc 

cc cccc 
cc CCC 

cc 
^cc 

<c:<ac 't . 



c *^ c 

c « CC 

c-^-rxc 



••ace. ,j;c 

"% CC 

c exec lie 

c ccc CC 

<s cc <r _ cc 
-I f cccc ccc 
CC4C CC 

v. c ccc cc 

c ccc cc 

cc CCCCCC 



<rcc 

XL C 



^ CXC_< 
i «^ CC1< 

c cc- vC. 
c <£^ 

vx; 

v CC 

: CC^ 

c «o r 
cc c 



< cc 



C Cc <c 






• Cvv<jg 



cccc 
ot.ee: 

CO- c 
C v c 

c c ; c 

c < c 



C^ct 



t v C^Clc? C^ 

c CCcj - (C 

fC C^c 
C CC- 
c CC XC> 
ccc exc 

c C «; <: c«v_ 

ccc c - 

- -C. Cv v 



CC XTC C « C 

.'CCXCc .< 

r Cc CC C •: 

CCCCCC v 

CCCC C^C i.. 

Cv Cv CCiJl 

CCC: 

j c CC 

«r C ^ 

.<- i C c C 

VC A.CC-C 

v cc^xr 

c ccc <r ■ <T" 
CC c 

cc c 

CCC'C: ( < 

c<a 

<• <: 

V C <, 

^ccr^xcrrc 



/ 



Z.6 



THE AGREEMENT 



BETWEEN 

UNION SEMINARY AND THE GENERAL 

ASSEMBLY. 



A CHAPTER SUPPLEMENTARY TO " FIFTY YEARS OF THE UNION 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 



BY 



GEORGE L. TRENTISS, 

Professor in the Institution. 




NEW YORK: 
ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY, 

38 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET. 



V 



*<y 



^ 



tf\ 



Copyright, 1891, by 
ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY. 



[The Library 
os Congress 
- 



WASHlNGtfdK 



J 



PRESS OF 

EDWARD O. JENKINS' SON, 

NEW YORK. 



CONTENTS. 



i. 

PAGE 

Action of the Joint Committee on Eeunion with regard 
to the Theological Seminaries, ..... 1 



II. 

The Veto in the Election op its Professors as Conceded 
by Union Seminary to the General Assembly, . . 7 

(a). Origin and design of Union Theological Seminary, . 9 

(b). Reasons and influences that induced Union Seminary, 

in 1870, to give up a portion of its autonomy, . . 12 

(c). Action and purpose of the Board of Directors in making 

this concession, 24 

(d). Did the Board of Directors of Union Seminary suppose 
that in their action on May 16, 1870, they were offer- 
ing to enter into a legal compact with the General 
Assembly? . ... 29 

(e). Scope and limitations of the veto in the election of its 
Professors offered to the General Assembly by the 
Directors of Union Seminary in 1870, . . .34 

(/). Acceptance of the offer of Union Seminary made to the 

General Assembly in its memorial of 1870, . . 41 

III. 

Sketch of the Operation and Effects of the Assembly's 
Veto Power in the Election of Theological Profes- 
sors from 1870 to the present time, . . . .48 

(a). Early and frequent misapprehension of the extent of this 

power on the part of the General Assembly, . . 49 

(iii) 



IV CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

(&). Quiescence of the Assembly's veto power from 1870 to 

1891, 51 

(c). Sudden use of the veto power in 1891, . . . .52 

(d). The General Assembly at Detroit, and how to judge its 

course, . . 55 

(e). The case against Dr. Briggs as argued by John J. 

McGook, 60 

(/). The Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries ; 

its report and the action of the Assembly, . . .70 

(g). Union Theological Seminary in its relations to Prince- 
ton, 91 

(h). The action at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs as an 

eye-opener, . . . . . . . . 103 

(i). A word in conclusion, . . 121 

APPENDIX. 

I. The establishment of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical 

Theology, 124 

II. The Inauguration, and the Rev. Dr. David R. Frazer's charge, 129 

III. Resolutions of the Board of Directors sustaining Dr. Briggs, . 137 

IV. Statement of the Faculty, 137 



NOTE. 



The following paper, prepared last summer, is now 
published in the hope that it may serve to correct some 
misapprehensions, which have widely prevailed with re- 
gard to the Union Theological Seminary in its relations 
to the General Assembly and the Presbyterian Church. 

New York, October 24, 1891. 



THE AGREEMENT OF 1870 

BETWEEN UNION SEMINAEY AND THE GENEBAL 
ASSEMBLY. 

A CHAPTER SUPPLEMENTARY TO 

" FIFTY YEARS OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, IN 
THE CITY OF NEW YORK." 



In the historical address delivered at the semi-centenary 
of Union Seminary, in 1886, there was only a passing allu- 
sion to this agreement. Nor had it attracted any special 
attention until early in the present year. Then, all at once, 
it began to be discussed in the religious newspapers; at 
first mildly and somewhat hesitatingly, but later in a very 
earnest and positive manner. As the meeting of the 
General Assembly drew near, the motive of this discussion 
became apparent. The agreement of 1870, as interpreted 
by the opponents of Dr. Briggs in the Presbyterian Church, 
gave the General Assembly power to forbid his transfer to 
the new chair of Biblical Theology ; and no sooner had the 
Assembly actually met than its purpose to exercise this powder 
was unmistakable. On the 29th of May it disapproved of 
Dr. Briggs' transfer by an overwhelming vote. This action 
of the General Assembly of 1891, whether regarded in its 
bearing upon the Presbyterian Church or upon the Union 
Seminary, is fraught with consequences of the utmost im- 
portance. In the following paper I propose to consider the 
subject in this twofold bearing ; and I shall try to do so 
without passion or prejudice, A better understanding of 



2 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

the whole subject will help, perhaps, to allay some of the 
passions and prejudices which unhappily its discussion has 
aroused. My aim will be to set forth, as clearly and suc- 
cinctly as possible, the main points which seem to me to be 
involved in the controversy, and thus to aid those whose 
minds are not yet fully made up, in reaching a just conclu- 
sion. 

I. 

ACTION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON REUNION WITH REGARD 
TO THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 

The question of the Theological Seminaries was one of 
the most difficult and perplexing with which the Joint Com- 
mittee, appointed in 1866, had to deal. This was owing 
partly to the nature of the subject, and in part to the great 
diversity of origin, constitution, environment, and legal re- 
lations which marked these institutions. 

The 9th Article of "the proposed terms of reunion be- 
tween the two branches of the Presbyterian Church of the 
United States of America," reported by the chairmen, Drs. 
Beatty and Adams, to their respective Assemblies, in May, 
1867, was as follows: 

If at any time, after the union has been effected, any of 
the theological seminaries under the care and control of the 
General Assembly, shall desire to put themselves under syn- 
odical control, they shall be permitted to do so at the request 
of their Boards of Directors ; and those seminaries which are 
independent in their organization shall have the privilege of 
putting themselves under ecclesiastical control, to the end 
that, if practicable, a system of ecclesiastical supervision of 
such institutions may ultimately prevail through the entire 
united Church. 

The 9th Article, as reported by the Joint Committee and 



THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 3 

adopted by the two General Assemblies in 1868, varied 
somewhat from this. It was as follows : 

In order to a uniform system of ecclesiastical supervision 
those theological seminaries that are now under Assembly 
control may, if their Boards of Direction so elect, be trans- 
ferred to the watch and care of one or more of the adjacent 
synods, and the other seminaries are advised to introduce, as 
far as may be, into their constitutions, the principle of Syn- 
odical or Assembly supervision ; in which case they shall be 
entitled to an official recognition and approbation on the part 
of the General Assembly. 

The changes in the Article are highly significant, and in- 
dicate several points of objection made to it as reported in 
1867. This amended Article reappeared among the " Con- 
current Declarations" of the General Assemblies of 1869. 
In explaining it in their report of 1868, the chairmen said : 

A recommendation looking to some uniformity of ecclesi- 
astical supervision, is all which the Committee felt to be with- 
in their province or that of the Assembly ; except that those 
seminaries, now belonging to either branch of the Church, 
should have every guarantee and protection for their char- 
tered rights which they might desire. 

This passage, both in its mild, even subdued, tone, and in 
its explanation, throws a clear light back upon the devious 
path by which the Committee had reached their conclusion. 
The discussion and criticism occasioned by their plan, as re- 
ported in 1867, had convinced them that the whole subject 
was beset with difficulties and perils, which required very 
delicate as well as skillful treatment. "A recommendation " 
(the italics are their own) " looking to some uniformity of 
ecclesiastical supervision, is all which the Committee felt to 
be within their province or that of the Assembly"; except 
that the "chartered rights " of all the seminaries of either 



4 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

branch of the Church, should be carefully guaranteed and 
protected. This was quite different language from that used 
in 1867 : " Those seminaries which are independent in their 
organization, shall have the privilege of putting themselves 
under ecclesiastical control." 

The temper of mind, as also the way, in which the Joint 
Committee and the friends of reunion generally had come to 
regard the question of the theological seminaries, may be seen 
most distinctly, perhaps, in the speech of Rev. George W. 
Musgrave, D.D., LL.D., made on the occasion of the pres- 
entation of the report of the Joint Committee of Confer- 
ence to the Old School General Assembly sitting in the 
Brick Church in the city of New York, May 27, 1869. No 
one who heard it is likely ever to forget that speech or the 
remarkable old man who made it. A few extracts will in- 
dicate its spirit and its bearing on the question now under 
discussion. Its opening sentences are as follows : 

It affords me great pleasure to be able to report a plan of 
union between what are known as the Old and New School 
bodies, and to be able to say that our report is unanimous, 
and is signed by every member of each Committee. The 
Joint Committee report three papers to the Assembly. The 
first is a plan of union, containing the basis, which will be 
sent down to the presbyteries for their acceptance or rejec- 
tion. The second paper is a declaration, made that there may 
be a good understanding between the two branches. This 
paper is not a compact or covenant, but it is a recommendation 
of certain arrangements as to seminaries, boards, etc. It is 
no part of the basis or terms of union. It only recommends 
certain arrangements as suitable to be adopted. The third 
paper is one recommending a day of prayer to Almighty God 
for His guidance and presence, that presbyteries may be 
under Divine influence when they come to vote upon this 
momentous question. 



THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON SEMINAEIES. 5 

In the course of his speech Dr. Musgrave thus referred 
to the " concurrent declarations " on theological seminaries, 
boards, and other matters pertaining to the interests of the 
Church, when it should become united : 

I have already stated to the Assembly that these articles 
don't form a part of the basis. They are not a compact or 
covenant, but they suggest to the Assembly what are suitable 
arrangements. I will not repeat what I have said, except to 
call your attention to that important distinction. They are 
not terms of the union. They may be amended or modified, 
as any future Assembly may deem proper. We told our 
brethren that we were unwilling to tie the future hands of 
the Church of God; and I, for one, was very decided on that 
point. And I will say to you that I would have risked the 
failure of this union at the present time, rather than concede 
that these articles should be unchangeable, though I cannot 
foresee that there will be any necessity in the future to change 
them. I am neither a prophet, nor the son of a prophet ; but 
I think I have some little common sense, and I felt that it 
would be unsafe for us to imperil the future by trammeling 
the Church of God, preventing it from exercising its liberty, 
and from dealing with circumstances as they might arise in 
the providence of God. Sir, we were very decided and de- 
termined that those articles should not form a part of the 
compact, but that they should be suggestions and recom- 
mendations, in order that the presbyteries should get an 
understanding between the parties. But, sir, it is due to 
fairness that I should say, and I repeat it now publicly in 
order that it may have a response from this house, we did 
say to these brethren, " We will not consent to make these 
articles a covenant. We won't adopt them as a legal compact, 
binding upon the future ; yet we are acting in good faith and 
as honorable men, and we say to you that we will not change 
them at any future time without obviously good and sufficient 
reasons." 



6 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

It is needless to add, that the wisdom of proposing and 
adopting these articles in the sense not of a legal compact, 
but of judicious, suitable arrangements, very soon became 
apparent. Dr. Musgrave's expressions, "We told our 
brethren," "¥e did say to these brethren," refer to the 
New School brethren, and are explained by the following 
extract from a sketch of " The Assemblies of 1869," writ- 
ten by the Kev. Dr. M. W. Jacobus, Moderator of the Old 
School Assembly : 

It may be mentioned, as part of the inside history of the 
negotiations, that when the Joint Sub-Committee met for the 
purpose of engrossing what had been passed upon by the 
Joint Committee of Conference, and to prepare the report to 
the Assembly, one of the members (N. S.) objected to the in- 
sertion of the words contained in the preamble to the con- 
current declarations, viz. : " not as articles of compact or 
covenant, but as in their judgment proper and equitable 
arrangements." He admitted that the language fairly ex- 
pressed what had been agreed upon, that the articles referred 
to were merely recommended, and if adopted by the united 
Church might hereafter, for good and sufficient reasons, be 
modified or repealed. But he argued that the insertion of 
the words above referred to would make the impression 
that the articles are ephemeral, and would have a tendency 
to invite change. There was force in the objection. But to 
this it was well replied, that the words ought to be inserted : 
1. Because they fairly express our mutual good under- 
standings. 2. Because, if omitted, it might be hereafter argued 
that the articles were intended to be a compact between the two 
parties, which coxdd not be honorably modified or repealed. 3. 
Because it was held to be in the highest degree important 
that the united Church should be left entirely free to adapt 
itself to any changes which, in the future development of 
Providence, might be deemed either necessary or expedient. 
This difference threatened to be a stumbling-block in the 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 7 

way, even -within reach of the goal. At this very crisis, how- 
ever, an eminent layman of the New School committee joined 
in this view of the case, with such cogent reasons as to prove 
the correctness of the position. Upon re-examination of the 
paragraph, the dissent was revoked, and the entire paper 
was then adopted by a unanimous vote. This meeting of the 
Joint Sub-Committee was held on the evening preceding the 
day of presenting the report to the General Assembly, and 
it was not until eleven o'clock at night that the decisive vote 
was reached in the committee-room. 



II. 



THE VETO IN THE ELECTION OF ITS PROFESSORS AS CONCEDED 
BY UNION SEMINARY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 

"We come now to a main object of this paper, the occa- 
sion, meaning, and force of the veto power offered and 
given to the General Assembly in 1870 by Union Semi- 
nary. I have shown what was the action of the Joint Com- 
mittee respecting the theological seminaries np to the time 
of the reunion. As the result of long and patient con- 
sideration, aided by varied discussion throughout the two 
Churches, the ninth article, or concurrent declaration, al- 
ready given, had been reported to the General Assemblies 
and adopted by both bodies. This article was a " recom- 
mendation " and nothing more. So the case stood, when 
the first General Assembly of the united Church met at 
Philadelphia, in May, 1870. The work of this Assembly 
was principally one of readjustment and reconstruction. 
The articles approved by the two Assemblies at New York 
in 1869, not as a part of the basis of union, or as a legal 
compact, but as " suitable arrangements," were now to be 
acted upon. The varying, not to say more or less conflict- 
ing, institutions, legal rights, customs, agencies, properties, 



8 UNION seminary and the assembly. 

and activities of both branches, Old School and Kew, now no 
longer two but one, were all to be brought into harmonious 
relations, in accordance with the changed order of things 
and the new organic life. I was a member of the Assem- 
bly of 1870, and can testify, as an eye-witness, that its ruling 
spirit, from beginning to end, was the spirit, not of fear, or 
suspicion, or jealousy, or any such thing, but of power and 
of love, and of a sound mind. The presence of the stur- 
diest, foremost opponent of reunion, Dr. Charles Hodge, if 
not as a commissioner, yet as a most interested looker-on 
and even friendly adviser, along with the beautiful tribute 
of high regard and affection paid by ^New and Old School 
men alike to Albert Barnes, then about to pass to his great 
reward, happily symbolized this spirit. 

As might have been anticipated, William Adams was 
placed at the head of the standing committee on theological 
seminaries. As chairman of the ISTew School part of the 
joint committee on reunion, he had won the confidence 
and admiration of the whole Church, alike by his wisdom, 
his Christian temper, his felicitous addresses, and his mas- 
terly reports. One of his colleagues on the committee, the 
late beloved Dr. Shaw, of Rochester, wrote to him : " The 
Church owes to you so large a debt that no one but God is 
rich enough to pay it." But inasmuch as all the theological 
seminaries connected with the Assembly belonged to the Old 
School, Dr. Adams felt that delicacy forbade his acting as 
chairman of the committee on that subject. He, therefore, 
as a personal favor, asked permission to decline the appoint- 
ment, suggesting Dr. John C. Backus in his place. But 
the Assembly insisted that he should serve. 

"I think," said Dr. Musgrave, himself a director of 
Princeton, " the moderator has shown his wisdom in ap- 
pointing a man so entirely acceptable to all this house. 
We have no rivalship, no jealousies, no fear, but perfect 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 9 

confidence and love, and the Old School men would rather 
Dr. Adams should be in that position, because he was once 
a New School man. We have this additional evidence that 
we are one." * 

And now, before proceeding further, let us return to 
Union Seminary and the veto power offered by it to the 
General Assembly in the election of its professors. In 
order to present the subject more clearly, I will touch 
briefly upon several points bearing on it. 

(a). Origin and design of Union Theological Seminary. 

The Union Theological Seminary was intended not only 
to be a new school of divinity, but also, as such, to repre- 
sent a distinct type of religious thought, sentiment, and 
policy. It differed in important respects from Andover, 
from Princeton, and from Auburn. It was largely the 
growth at once of the fervid evangelistic spirit of the time, 
and of that devotion to the cause of sacred science and a 
learned ministry, which marked all the churches of Puritan 
origin. In establishing it, the founders, who were earnest, 
practical men, aimed to embody in a permanent form cer- 
tain views of Christian piety and theological training, 
which they regarded as specially fitted to prepare young 
men for effective service in the ministry of the Gospel in 
their own age. And in carrying out these views, they 
took pains to organize the institution on a plan in harmony 
with them. While providing carefully for sound Scriptural 

* These two eminent leaders of the Assembly at Philadel- 
phia early attracted the attention of spectators in the gal- 
leries, who by way of characterizing their peculiar traits, 
jokingly named Dr. Musgrave " Old Unanimous/' and Dr. 
Adams " Old Magnanimous." See a letter of Rev. Dr. T. L. 
Cuyler in The Evangelist, written at the time, in which is a 
graphic pen-picture of the Assembly of 1870. 



10 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

teaching, and avowing also their adherence to Presbyterian 
doctrines and polity, they at the same time resolved to give 
the Seminary perfect freedom and self-control in the man- 
agement of its own affairs. This was doubtless the result 
in part of providential circumstances ; but it was none the 
less a result of deliberate conviction and purpose. Their 
noble temper of mind, their large, world-wide outlook, and 
the sacredness they attached to their work, may be seen in 
the preamble to the constitution of the Seminary. Here 
are portions of it : 

That the design of the founders of this Seminary may 
be publicly known, and be sacredly regarded by the directors, 
professors, and students, it is judged proper to make the 
following preliminary statement: 

A number of Christians, both clergymen and laymen, in 
the cities of New York and Brooklyn, deeply impressed with 
the claims of the world upon the Church of Christ, to furnish 
a competent supply of well-educated and pious ministers of 
the Gospel ; impressed also with the inadequacy of all exist- 
ing means for this purpose ; and believing that large cities 
furnish many peculiar facilities and advantages for conduct- 
ing theological education ; having, after several meetings for 
consultation and prayer, again convened on the 18th of 
January, a.d. 1836, unanimously adopted the following reso- 
lution and declarations : 

1. Besolved, In humble dependence on the grace of God, 
to attempt the establishment of a theological seminary in the 
city of New York. 

2. In this institution it is the design of the founders to 
furnish the means of a full and thorough education in all the 
subjects taught in the best theological seminaries in this or 
other countries. 

3. Being fully persuaded that vital godliness, a thorough 
education, and practical training in the works of benevolence 
and pastoral labor are all essential to meet the wants and 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 11 

promote the best interests of the kingdom of Christ, the 
founders of this seminary design that its students, remain- 
ing under pastoral influence, and performing the duties of 
church members in the several churches to which they be- 
long, or with which they worship, in prayer-meetings, in the 
instruction of Sabbath-schools and Bible-classes, and being 
conversant with all the benevolent efforts of the present day 
in this great community, shall have the opportunity of add- 
ing to solid learning and true piety the teachings of experi- 
ence. 

4. By the foregoing advantages, the founders hope and 
expect, with the blessing of God, to call forth and enlist in 
the service of Christ and in the work of the ministry, genius, 
talent, enlightened piety, and missionary zeal ; and to qual- 
ify many for the labors and management of the various 
religious institutions, seminaries of learning, and enterprises 
of benevolence which characterize the present times. 

The founders of Union Seminary were at the time 
mostly pastors or members of churches, nearly all of 
which, after the disruption, sided with the New School 
branch. Of the clerical directors in the first board, one 
only adhered to the Old School, and he had recently come 
from a Congregational pastorate in New England. Of the 
first lay directors, also, nearly all belonged to the New 
School. The founders of the Seminary were in hearty 
sympathy with Albert Barnes, Lyman Beecher, and men 
of that stamp. They were enthusiastic believers in the 
new Christian evangelism at home and abroad. They be- 
lieved also in the " voluntary principle," and were exceed- 
ingly jealous of all "high-toned" ecclesiasticism. They 
hated religious quarrels and bickerings. Their sentiments 
on these and similar points led to the establishment of the 
Seminary, found expression in its constitution, and have 
shaped its policy from that day to this. Here is their own 



12 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

account of the matter, written by that admirable man, 
Erskine Mason, son of the friend of Hamilton, the re- 
nowned Dr. John M. Mason : 

It is the design of the founders to provide a theological 
seminary in the midst of the greatest and most growing com- 
munity in America, around which all men of moderate views 
and feelings, who desire to live free from party strife, and to 
stand aloof from all extremes of doctrinal speculation, practical 
radicalism, and ecclesiastical domination, may cordially and 
affectionately rally. 

To keep clear of all extremes of " ecclesiastical domina- 
tion," they made the Seminary independent alike of Pres- 
bytery, of Synod, and of General Assembly. Its autonomy 
was complete and unquestioned. Nothing could be more 
cordial than were its relations with the .New School Church. 
It made annual reports and statements to the General 
Assembly touching its affairs : the elections, transfers, and 
deaths of its professors ; its successive endowments, and all 
things of general interest. But the Assembly had no pro- 
prietorship or control over it. The whole Church was proud 
of Union Seminary, and the Seminary loved and honored 
the Presbyterian Church. This happy state of things con- 
tinued until 1370. Why was it then changed ? 

(b). Reasons and influences that induced Union Semi- 
nary r , in 1870, to give up a portion of its autonomy. 

1. First of all, it was done in the hope of furthering 
thereby the harmony and prosperity of the Presbyterian 
Church. Reunion had been already accomplished, and 
Union Seminary had from the first thrown the whole 
weight of its influence in favor of the movement. Henry 
B. Smith had struck its keynote, and, later, in a contest of 
the pen, had met and vanquished its ablest foe. Dr. Shedd, 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POY/ER. 13 

in the General Assembly at Albany, in 1868, had vindicated 
the cause of reunion, and at the same time the orthodoxy of 
the New School against the charges of Drs. Charles and 
A. A. Hodge, Dr. Breckinridge, and other Princeton and 
Old School leaders. Their colleague, Thomas H. Skinner, 
a very eminent New School leader, was in heartiest sym- 
pathy with them; while William Adams, Jonathan F. 
Stearns, and Edwin F. Hatfield, all directors of Union, 
had been among the most active members of the Joint 
Committee. Such ardent friends of reunion as William 
E. Dodge, Charles Butler, Richard T. Haines, and other 
noted laymen, also belonged to the Union Board. It was 
altogether natural, therefore, that Union Seminary should 
have felt deeply interested in removing, as far as possible, 
all obstacles to the complete success of reunion out of the 
way. Dr. Adams was especially anxious that the wheels 
of the great Church organization, whose strength was now 
doubled, and which he believed to be fraught with vast 
power for good, should move right on without friction. 
He wielded at this time a greater influence than any other 
director of Union Seminary, greater perhaps than any 
other minister of the Presbyterian Church. He was the 
man of all others to appeal to in taking hold of the 
" plan " of 1870. These are some of the general considera- 
tions and motives which led him to propose and the direct- 
ors of Union Seminary to adopt that plan. 

2. But the question here arises, why precisely such a 
plan, differing so materially from that recommended by 
the General Assemblies of 1869, should have been pro- 
posed ? In the plan recommended by the General Assem- 
blies, it will be noticed, no mention was made of a veto in 
the election of professors. The Old School seminaries 
might, if their boards of direction desired it, be transferred 
from Assembly control to the watch and care of one or 



14 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

more of the adjacent synods ; while the New School semi- 
naries were " advised " to introduce, as far as might be, 
into their constitutions the principle of synodical or Assem- 
bly supervision. 

Neither of these recommendations was followed. No 
Old School seminary was transferred from the control of 
the General Assembly to the watch and care of one or 
more of the adjacent synods. Nor did Union Seminary 
introduce into its " constitution " the principle of synod- 
ical or Assembly supervision. This shows what good reason 
Dr. Musgrave had for saying that the " concurrent declara- 
tions" lacked entirely the binding force or quality of a 
"legal compact," and it shows also that, with all their 
uncommon ability and wisdom, and after years of delibera- 
tion, the Joint Committee had recommended what was 
altogether impracticable. Between the great ratification 
meeting at Pittsburgh in November, 1869, and the meeting 
at Philadelphia in May, 1870, it had become perfectly 
clear that Princeton — I confine myself at present mainly 
to this seminary — could not be released from Assembly 
control, and put itself under the watch and care of one 
or more of the adjacent synods, without imperilling its 
endowments. In this dilemma Union Seminary was urged 
to come to the help of Princeton ; nor did there seem to 
be any other way of relief. The appeal was based largely 
upon a strong conviction, common to the wisest and best 
friends of both seminaries, that the election of professors 
by the General Assembly was open to serious objections, 
and would be open to graver objections in the future. 

At the founding of Princeton in 1812 the Presbyterian 
Church was a small body, numerically and territorially, 
and the selection of theological teachers could very prop- 
erly be intrusted to the knowledge and discretion of its 
General Assembly. The choice of the first professors of 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 15 

Princeton — those very admirable types of Presbyterian 
piety, wisdom, and learning, Samuel Miller and Archibald 
Alexander — was, doubtless, the best possible. But in 1870 
the Presbyterian Church had increased enormously both in 
numbers and extent ; it covered the continent ; and its 
branches reached to the uttermost parts of the earth. Even 
then in exceptional cases, no doubt, the General Assembly 
could judge as well as any board of directors who was best 
qualified for this or that chair of instruction — but only in 
exceptional cases. As a rule, the General Assembly was 
every year becoming less fitted to exercise this difficult 
function. 

The point is so important in its bearing on the matter 
under discussion, that I will enforce my position by that of 
men whose opinions respecting it are entitled to special 
weight. Here is an extract from a letter of Dr. A. A. 
Hodge, written late in 1867 : 

It is proper, it is almost a necessity, that each institution 
should be left in the management of those upon whose sup- 
port it exclusively depends. The majority of any Assembly 
must be necessarily ignorant of the special wants and local 
conditions of any seminary, and of the qualifications of can- 
didates proposed for its chairs of instruction. The best of 
these are generally young men, up to the time of their 
nomination known only to a few. To vest the choice in the 
General Assembly will tend to put prominent ecclesiastics 
into such positions, rather than scholars, or men specially 
qualified with gifts for teaching. As the population of our 
country becomes larger and more heterogeneous, and the 
General Assembly increases proportionably, the difficulties 
above mentioned, and many others easily thought of, will 
increase. 

Dr. Henry B. Smith, to whom this letter was addressed, 



16 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY, 

thus expressed his own view in noticing some of the ob- 
jections to the Joint Committee's report of 1867 : 

The plan allows those seminaries that are now under the 
Assembly to remain so, or if they choose, to put themselves 
instead under synodical supervision ; and it recommends 
the seminaries not under ecclesiastical supervision to attain 
unto that condition ; but does not insist on this — as of 

course it could not It is a fair and serious question, 

whether a General Assembly, representing the Presbyterian 
Church throughout the whole United States, especially in 
view of the numbers in that Church, and the extent of the 
territory in twenty or thirty years, will be the best, or even a 
suitable body, to choose the professors and manage the con- 
cerns of all the Presbyterian seminaries scattered through- 
out the country. We very much doubt whether this would 
be a wise arrangement. It may work well in Scotland, but 
Scotland has its limits. It might bring into the Assembly local, 
personal, and theological questions, which it would be better to 
settle in a narrower field. 

The following strong expression of opinion, written by 
Dr. Adams, is from the memorial itself of the directors of 
Union Theological Seminary to the General Assembly : 

It has appeared to many, and especially to those who 
took an active part in founding the Union Theological Semi- 
nary, that there are many disadvantages, infelicities, not to 
say at times perils, in the election of professors of the theo- 
logical seminaries directly and immediately by the General 
Assembly itself, — a body so large, in session for so short a time, 
and composed of members to so great an extent resident at a 
distance from the seminaries themselves, and therefore per- 
sonally unacquainted with many things which • pertain to 
their true interests and usefulness. 

It is noteworthy that in this memorial of the directors 
of Union Seminary, offering a veto in the election of its 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. . 17 

professors, two reasons only are assigned ; namely, first a 
desire, as was said before, of doing all in their power to 
establish confidence and harmony throughout the whole 
Church ; and, in the second place, a desire to secure to the 
Old School seminaries, in which those of the New School 
were henceforth to have a common interest, the privilege, 
so highly prized by themselves, of choosing professors in 
each institution by its own board of directors, instead of 
having them chosen in every case by the General Assem- 
bly. On these two grounds the memorial of the board of 
directors of Union Seminary was chiefly based. These 
two considerations the friends of Princeton appealed to 
with great force, when urging Dr. Adams to give them 
aid in their dilemma. 

It was stated at Detroit that prior to the meeting of the 
Assembly of 1870, " Dr. Adams conferred with and fully 
submitted his plan to his friends at Princeton, who opened 
their arms and hearts to receive him, and they promptly 
responded to every one of his suggestions." * 

This needs to be supplemented by the additional state- 
ment that his friends at Princeton submitted to him their 
plan, and that he promptly responded to their suggestions. 
It was no doubt in response to their suggestion that his 
original plan gave to the General Assembly a veto in the 
election of directors, as well as of professors. Had that way 
of solving the problem of the theological seminaries origi- 
nated with Dr. Adams, he would almost certainly have pro- 
posed it during the troublesome negotiations on this sub- 
ject, which ran on for nearly three years prior to the re- 
union. There is no intimation that he did anything of the 
sort. And yet the point had been made, again and again, 

* Eemarks of John J. McCook, a Commissioner from 
the Presbytery of New York, pp. 3. 



18 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

by Old School opponents of the terms of reunion, as pro- 
posed by the Joint Committee in their report to the As- 
semblies of 1867, that the seminaries of both branches of 
the Church ought in fairness to be placed on a footing of 
" perfect equality." Why, it was said, should the Old 
School institutions continue to be subject to the full control 
of the General Assembly, the New School coming in for an 
equal share in its exercise, while two at least of the New 
School institutions continued under what Dr. A. A. Hodge, 
in a letter to Professor Smith, called " self-perpetuated and 
irresponsible boards of trustees." Such was the reasoning 
of opponents of the Joint Committee's report of 1867. 
Indeed so strong was the feeling and contention of some 
with regard to this point ; so confident were they of the 
superior advantages of subjection to ecclesiastical control, 
more especially the control of the General Assembly, over 
any possible advantages of subjection to a board of di- 
rectors, or trustees ; and so persistent were they in assert- 
ing this view, that upon reviewing their arguments in the 
light of to-day, one can scarcely help being reminded of 
the fable, so dear to children, entitled " The Fox without 
a Tail." The fox, it will be remembered, was caught in a 
trap by his tail, and in order to get away was forced to 
leave it behind. Whereupon he resolved to try to induce 
his fellows to part with theirs ; or, as Henry B. Smith ex- 
pressed it, in his characteristic way, " to attain unto that 
condition." * 

* So at the next assembly of foxes he made a speech on 
the unprofitableness of tails in general, and the inconveni- 
ence of a fox's tail in particular, adding that he had never 
felt so easy as since he had given up his own. "When he sat 
down, a sly old fellow rose, and waving his long brush with 
a graceful air, said with a sneer, that if, like the last speaker, 
he had lost his tail, nothing further would have been needed 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 19 

I have taken for granted that Dr. Adams' first plan, 
which gave to the General Assembly a veto in the election 
of Union directors, was the result of a conference with 
his friends at Princeton. So too, unquestionably, was his 
second plan, which conceded to the General Assembly a veto 
in the election of Union professors. Had either of these 
modes of solving the question of the theological semi- 
naries occurred to his own mind as the best, he cer- 
tainly, I repeat, would have brought it before the Joint 
Committee during the two or more years that Committee 
was in existence. But I find no evidence that it was even 
mentioned. Neither the word " veto," nor the thing itself, 
appears in the report of the Joint Committee made in 
1867, nor in that of 1868, nor in the report of the Com- 
mittee of Conference in 1869. The veto first appears in 
the plan presented to the board of directors of Union 
Seminary at the meeting on May 9, 1870. At an adjourned 
meeting of the same board, held on May 16, it reappeared 
as a veto in the election of professors. Why this abandon- 
ment of the scheme recommended by article ninth of the 
report of the Joint Committee and by the General As- 
semblies of 1869 ? And why the sudden abandonment of 
the method proposed to the board of directors of Union 
Seminary on May 9th, and the substitution in its place, on 
May 16th, of still another method, namely, a veto in the 
election of professors alone ? The whole thing is curious 
and suggestive in a high degree. Consider that the ad- 
journed meeting of the board occurred on Monday after- 
noon, May 16th, and that the General Assembly was to 
meet at Philadelphia on the ensuing Thursday, May 19th. 
No time, therefore, was to be lost. And no time was lost. 

to convince him ; but till such an accident should happec 
he should certainly vote in favor of tails. — Ancient Fables. 



20 UNION SEMINABY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

It was too ]ate, however, to give to the public intimations 
of the plan of May 16th. The Evangelist, one of whose 
editors at that time was a prominent minister of the late 
Old School, contained a carefully written editorial, out- 
lining the General Assembly's work. In the course of this 
article is the following significant paragraph : 

It is very desirable that the several theological seminaries 
connected with the Church be brought into the same, or sim- 
ilar, relations to the Assembly. The scheme proposed by the 
Princeton Review, April number, has met with much favor. 
Let it be understood that the boards of the respective semi- 
naries shall be allowed to fill the vacancies in their own num- 
ber, as that scheme contemplates ; and to appoint the incum- 
bents of the several chairs, subject in each case to the approval 
of the nest General Assembly ; and, it is thought, the semina- 
ries of both branches will cheerfully come upon this platform. 
Princeton and Union are understood to be prepared for it, and to 
desire it. 

The article in the Princeton Review for April, 1870, was 
probably written by Dr. Charles Hodge, the founder and 
then senior editor of the Review. The " scheme " referred 
to was as follows : 

Let the Assembly confide the supervision and control of 
the seminaries now under its control to their respective boards 
of direction, as now, with simply these alterations : 1. That 
these boards shall nominate persons to fill their own vacancies 
to the Assembly for confirmation. 2. That they shall arrange 
the professorships, and appoint the professors, subject to rat- 
ification by the Assembly. This would suffice for unification, 
so far as seminaries heretofore of the Old School, branch are 
concerned. 

It seems to us that it cannot be difficult for the seminaries 
of the other branch to reach substantially the same platform. 
They, of course, can report annually to the Assemblies [Assem- 



THE CONCESSION OE THE VETO POWER. 21 

bly] . Without knowing all the details of their present char- 
ters, we presume there is no insuperable obstacle to their 
making the simple by-law that all their elections to fill vacan- 
cies in the board or boards of oversight and direction, also of 
professors, shall be submitted to the Assembly for approval 
before they are finally ratified. If the charters now forbid 
such an arrangement, doubtless alterations could easily be 
obtained which would admit of it, or something equivalent, 
—pp. 311, 312. 

At the opening, then, of the first General Assembly of 
the reunited Church, on May 19, 1870, the case stood thus : 
Princeton objected to the " recommendation " of the As- 
semblies of 1869 as unwise and could not follow it without 
imperilling a portion of her endowments ; Union, warned 
in time, refused to adopt the Princeton " scheme " with re- 
gard to directors, but offered to accept it in a greatly modi- 
fied form with regard to professors ; while both had me- 
morialized the General Assembly in favor of the latter ar- 
rangement. This posture of things was a logical, not to 
say necessary, outcome of the whole situation. It followed 
inevitably that Princeton should look forward with special 
solicitude to the possible action of the Assembly at Phila- 
delphia, touching theological seminaries. Some of her dear- 
est interests were, as she believed, more or less involved in 
the issue. It would have been strange, indeed, had she not 
regarded with a certain misgiving the part which the new 
copartners might take in shaping that issue. Her tempta- 
tion was to overestimate the importance of a " uniform sys- 
tem " in dealing with the theological seminaries, and to be 
coo solicitous of having them all even as she herself was. 
The temptation of Union, on the other hand, was rather to 
yield too readily to the magnanimous impulses of the hour, 
and so allow her cooler judgment to be overpowered by the 
surging tide of reunion enthusiasm. 



22 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

Pope Innocent XII. wrote to the French prelates, who 
had procured the famous brief condemning Fenelon : " He 
erred by loving God too much," — "Peccavit excessu amoris 
divini "; — so one might say of Dr. Adams, that he erred, if 
at all, in too exclusive devotion to the peace and harmony 
of the reunited Church ; and the same might be said of most 
of his associates in the directory of Union Seminary. But 
on one point Union and Princeton were in perfect accord. 
Both regarded it as exceedingly desirable that theological 
professors should no longer be elected by the General As- 
sembly ; Princeton, primarily, on her own account ; Union, 
on account of Princeton, as also of the other Old School 
seminaries. It is fair to add that some of the strongest 
friends of Princeton were, no doubt, influenced by another 
reason for wishing to be liberated from further subjection 
to the General Assembly in the election of its professors ; 
namely, distrust of the doctrinal soundness of the late New 
School Church. Dr. Charles Hodge led a whole company 
of eminent Old School men, who to the last protested and 
fought against reunion largely on this ground ; they had no 
sympathy with it. To some of these, especially to Dr. Hodge 
himself, Dr. Beatty refers in a striking letter printed in 
The Evangelist of August 6, 1891 : " Dr. Adams knew what 
great difficulties and conflicts of mind I had from the fact 
that my best friends were in opposition to my views ; and 
I made the request of him that after my death he would 
state these things in some article in The Evangelist" Did 
the simple fact of reunion at once change their honest con- 
victions on this subject? Not at all. And, therefore, the 
sudden accession of the New School branch to equal power 
in the General Assembly, bringing their " loose " notions 
of subscription and all their other objectionable views with 
them, intensified the desire to take the election of Prince- 
ton professors out of that body. 



THE CONCESSION OF THE YETO POWEK. 23 

And it is only right to add further, that in voting, as they 
all did, in favor of remitting the election of professors in the 
Old School seminaries to their several boards of direction, 
the commissioners who belonged to the late New School 
branch were voting to dispossess themselves at once of a power 
in the control of those seminaries, which reunion had fairly 
put into their hands. It was the proper thing for them to 
do ; but it was also a handsome thing to do so promptly and 
so heartily. 

On the basis, then, of a common sentiment respecting the 
election of theological professors both Union and Princeton 
memorialized the General Assembly ; and through their 
joint influence the plan proposed by Union was unanimously 
adopted. 

And just here let me say that in the negotiations and dis- 
cussion relating to the theological seminaries from 1866 to 
1870, and in most of the pending controversy about the 
veto power as well, one ever recurring fallacy and misap- 
prehension is perceptible ; viz., that all the seminaries stood 
and stand substantially upon the same ground and should 
therefore be dealt with in the same way. A "uniform sys- 
tem " of ecclesiastical control or supervision, was the thing 
sought for. It was a thing impossible without uprooting 
or suppressing original elements of the utmost value in the 
very being and life of several of the seminaries. How could 
Union and Princeton, for example, be put upon a footing 
of " perfect equality," when one of these institutions derived 
its origin from the action of a company of good men in the 
cities of New York and Brooklyn, and possessed complete 
autonomy ; while the other was created by the special ac- 
tion of the General Assembly and was subject to its ulti- 
mate authority in all things ? And the differences between 
the two institutions are still radical. This point should be 
kept constantly in mind. It will not do, for example, to 



24 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

consider the legal relations of Princeton and of Union to 
the General Assembly, as if these relations were the same. 
They are almost wholly different. Princeton derives its 
origin from the General Assembly, which is its patron and 
the fountain of its powers. The General Assembly had 
nothing to do with the founding of Union, is not its patron 
nor the fountain of any of its powers. The proprietorship 
and control of the General Assembly over Princeton, al- 
though modified in one respect in 1 870, remain still intact 
with regard to other points of vital importance. In the 
election of its directors, as well as of its professors, Prince- 
ton is subject to the veto of the General Assembly, and so 
it is in suspending or removing a professor. The Assembly 
has no such power in the case of Union. For cause the 
board of directors of Union can discipline, suspend, or re- 
move a professor ; can at its discretion assign him specific 
duties, and transfer him from one chair to another,' or cre- 
ate a new chair and put him into it ; and the General As- 
sembly has no voice whatever in the matter. 

I have thus stated some of the principal reasons and in- 
fluences that in 1870 induced Union Seminary to concede 
to the General Assembly a portion of its autonomy. 

(c). Action and piuypose of the Board of Directors in 
malting this concession. 

The subject was first brought before the board by Dr. 
Adams at a meeting held on May 9, 1870. Among the 
directors present were Edwin F. Hatfield and Jonathan F. 
Stearns, who with Dr. Adams had been members of the 
Joint Committee on Keunion ; Joseph S. Gallagher, James 
Patriot Wilson, Charles Butler, Korman White, Fisher 
Howe, William A. Booth, D. Willis James, and John 
Crosby Brown. These names speak for themselves and 
need no glossary. They represent moral strength, sound 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWES. ■ 25 

judgment, large and varied experience, world-wide influ- 
ence, intelligent piety, and all the other qualities that go to 
make up solid weight of character. To most of the di- 
rectors the plan proposed for their adoption was wholly new. 
They had never before heard of it. But as coming from 
Dr. Adams, as offered in the interest of the unity and har- 
mony of the Presbyterian Church, and, also, in response to 
urgent persuasions from the old and honored seminary at 
Princeton, it won their consent, if not their entire approval. 
So far as its weak points were concerned, it took them at a 
serious disadvantage. They had no time for reflection. 
And so, while there was • considerable discussion, with 
a single notable exception none opposed the scheme. 
Several of the professors were present, but they raised 
no objection. The record would doubtless be differ- 
ent had Henry E. Smith been among them. He was a 
theologian of extraordinary sagacity, always looking be- 
fore and after, for he had the instincts of a born statesman. 
And his devotion to Union Seminary was a ruling passion. 
The plan of putting the institution under ecclesiastical 
control never pleased him. He considered the generous 
and self-governing liberty, which was its birthright, a bless- 
ing too great to be parted with at any price. He distrusted 
also a certain tendency and temper, or, rather, as he viewed 
it, distemper, which again and again in the last century 
and in our own had troubled the peace and hampered the 
free development of American Presbyterianism. In 1837, 
at the age of twenty-one, he had been a watchful eye- 
witness of the turbulent scenes at Philadelphia, when the 
four synods were cut off and the great disruption was in- 
augurated. From that time he was a keen observer of all 
that went on in the two branches of the Presbyterian 
Church ; and before coming to ISTew York, thirteen years 
later, he had formed opinions on the subject which re- 



26 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

mained essentially unchanged to the day of his death. In 
a letter to me, dated Amherst, September 17, 1850, he 
wrote : 

I go to New York in full view of the uncertainties and 

difficulties of the position It [the Seminary] stands 

somewhere between Andover and Princeton, just as New 
School Presbyterianism stands between Congregationalism 
and the consistent domineering Presbyterianism, and will be 
pressed on all sides. Whether it is to be resolved into these 
two, or to be consolidated on its own ground, is still a 

problem I am going to New York to work, — to work, 

I trust, for my Master. 

This " consistent domineering " element, so far as it pre- 
vailed in Presbyterianism, whether in the theological or 
the ecclesiastical sphere, he regarded with strong dislike. 
Had he been present, therefore, at the meeting of the 
board on May 9, 1870, I believe he would have stood just 
where D. Willis James so firmly stood with respect to the 
plan of conceding to the General Assembly so vital a 
part of the Seminary's chartered rights and autonomy as 
the last decisive word in the election of its own professors. 
And Henry B. Smith was, probably, the only man whose 
voice at that time on any matter touching the theological 
seminaries would have been equally potential with that of 
William Adams. But, unfortunately, early in the previous 
year, just as reunion was about to triumph, Professor Smith, 
utterly broken down in the service of Union Seminary and 
of the Presbyterian Church, had fled for his life beyond 
the sea, and he was still abroad. 

I have intimated that a single director only — D. Willis 
James — raised his voice against the plan proposed by Dr. 
Adams. Mr. James is a grandson of Anson G. Phelps, 
and thus is identified with the history of the Seminary by 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 27 

his close kinship to three generations of its benefactors, as 
well as by his own munificent gifts. At the memorable 
meeting of the board of directors of Union Seminary, 
held on June 5, 1891, Mr. James made the following 
highly important statement : 

I feel it due to the board of directors to give to them a 
statement of what occurred at the meeting of the directors 
held on the 9th of May, 1870, when the matter of the con- 
nection of the Seminary with the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian Church was first considered. That meeting, 
from the circumstances of the case, and all that occurred 
there at that time, is most clearly and indelibly impressed 
upon my memory. 

Dr. Adams proposed that the Union Theological Seminary 
should give to the General Assembly a veto power over the 
appointment of the directors of the Seminary, assigning as 
the reason, in much detail, that it would be a great aid to 
the other seminaries of the Church, whose professors were 
appointed by the action of the General Assembly and not by 
the board of directors. He also stated that experience had 
shown that the professors thus appointed by the General 
Assembly were frequently not such as proved to be the best 
men for the several positions. 

I strenuously objected to giving the veto power in the 
appointment of the directors to the General Assembly on the 
ground that it was practically placing the control of the 
property and all the interests of the Union Theological Sem- 
inary in the hands of the General Assembly, and that such 
action was fraught with great danger. 

A general discussion occurred, participated in by most of 
the directors, and I spoke a second time on the subject, call- 
ing attention most earnestly to the great danger, as it seemed 
to me, of any such action by which the large property of the 
Seminary, and all its interests, would be practically turned 
over to the control of the General Assembly. 



28 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMELY. 

But when it seemed evident that a vote would be taken 
and that the resolution would be passed by the board of di- 
rectors, I arose for the third time, feeling very strongly the 
importance of the matter under consideration, and said, in 
substance, that I should request, when the vote was taken, 
that it should be by ayes and nays, so that my vote could be 
recorded in the negative, and that I should also request that 
my most earnest and solemn protest be entered in full in the 
minutes, to the end that when the disaster came, as it cer- 
tainly would from this action — perhaps after all those who 
were taking part in the discussion at that time had passed 
away — the Seminary could then have the benefit of this 
protest and whatever legal advantages might come from such 
protest. 

I said that I did not desire to make factious opposition, 
but that I felt the interests of the Seminary were being 
jeopardized and that a great injury was being done to its 
future. 

"When I sat down Dr. Prentiss rose and said, substan- 
tially, that he would surprise the mover of the resolution 
by the action he was about to take, but that he had become 
impressed with the fact that it was wise to take further time 
for consideration, and would move a postponement of the 
matter for that purpose. This motion led to the postpone- 
ment of the vote. 

Prior to the adjourned meeting of May 16, 1870, I had 
an interview with Dr. Adams and expressed to him my sin- 
cere regret that I had been compelled to differ with him and 
other members of the board, but he then tendered to me his 
thanks for my having taken the course I did, and said he felt 
that it was wiser not to have passed the resolution he first 
proposed. 

He then suggested, in the interest of the other semi- 
naries then controlled by the General Assembly, the motion 
which was presented and adopted on the 16th of May, 1870, 
viz. : That the veto power in the appointment of the profes- 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 29 

sors should be given to the General Assembly, and this solely 
in the interest of other seminaries which would be benefited 
by this action of the Union Theological Seminary. 

I expressed to him then the view that I held, that even 
this action, though much better than placing the control of 
the property in the hands of the General Assembly, was still 
a very serious mistake, and calculated to produce great and 
unfortunate mischief. 

I said, however, that if he and other directors felt that 
this was the wisest course, and as they had yielded the mat- 
ter of the veto power over the appointment of directors, 
while I would not vote in favor of the resolution, I would not 
go on record against it ; and, as a result, the resolution was 
passed on the 16th of May, 1870, giving to the General 
Assembly only a veto over the appointment of professors and 
nothing more. 

(d). Did the Board of Directors of Union Seminary sup- 
pose that in their action on May 16, 1870, they were 
offering to enter into a legal compact with the General 
Assembly ? 

1. It has been assumed by many, and strenuously argued 
by others, that this was their understanding of the matter ; 
at all events, that such was the real quality and effect of 
their action. And on the ground of its possessing this 
character, we have been treated to somewhat elaborate 
definitions and expositions of the nature and binding force 
of a contract, the extent and limitations of ultra vires, and 
I know not how many other lessons in legal lore. And yet, 
according to the best of my own recollection, as a member 
of the board, and of my belief concerning all the other 
members present, not a single director supposed the board 
was entering into any such legal compact. Three directors 
who were present on May 9th, and also on May 1 6th, had 
been members of the Joint Committee on Eeunion, as I 



30 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

have said before ; one of them, Jonathan F. Stearns, was 
also a member of "the Joint Committee of Conference, which 
reported the final basis and plan of union to the two Assem- 
blies in 1869. He aided in preparing that important re- 
port, voted for it, signed it, and gave it his hearty approval. 
And it was in this report, made and explained to the Old 
School Assembly in the Brick Church by Dr. Musgrave, 
that those emphatic sentences relating to the articles on 
seminaries, boards, and the like occur : " We will not con- 
sent to make these articles a covenant ; we won't adopt 
them as a legal compact binding upon the future." Dr. 
Stearns was the most trusted counsellor of Henry B. 
Smith, and not unlike him in sagacity and forethought, as 
also in devotion to Union Seminary and the Presbyterian 
Church. To Dr. Stearns more, in my opinion, than to any 
other man did Union Seminary owe the coming of Henry 
B. Smith to New York. The New School branch of the 
Church especially never knew the full extent of her indebt- 
edness to him, for he was as modest as he was wise, fear- 
less, and public-spirited. Is it likely that such a man would 
have sat quietly and given his vote for a settlement of the 
question of the theological seminaries in a way, on a princi- 
ple, and with an understanding contradicting so utterly the 
report which a few months before he had joined in fram- 
ing and urging upon the acceptance of the General Assem- 
blies ? The thing is inconceivable. 

But I have not stated this aspect of the case in its full 
strength. Dr. Adams himself was a member of the Joint 
Committee of Conference, and signed the report as its 
chairman. He also presented the report to the New School 
Assembly in the Church of the Covenant, as Dr. Musgrave 
did at the same time to the Old School Assembly in the 
Brick Church. He explained it in a careful speech, calling 
attention to the point that the articles of agreement or con- 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 31 

current declarations were not a compact or contract, but 
recommendations only as to what might be suitable and ex- 
pedient. Is it at all probable, is it really conceivable, that 
such a man as Dr. Adams, only a few months later, would 
have proposed to the board of directors of Union Semi- 
nary a plan touching the whole future of that institution, 
which involved the very thing so distinctly repudiated by 
the unanimous vote of the Joint Committee of Conference ? 
and repudiated, too, by both Assemblies \ 

The plan of 1870 was an expression of Christian confi- 
dence and good-will on the part of the directors of Union 
Seminary. In offering to give up so much of their autono- 
my as was involved in conceding to the General Assembly 
a veto in the election of its professors, they were not think- 
ing of a legal compact, whereby the Seminary would gain 
certain positive advantages in return ; they were thinking 
simply of what seemed to them, on the whole, best fitted to 
promote the harmony and prosperity of the united Church, 
and the true interests of all the other theological seminaries. 
Their offer was in its very essence, as the General Assem- 
bly a few days after characterized it, an act of high " gen- 
erosity," or as Dr. Musgrave expressed it, in 1871, an act 
of " courtesy." But generosity and courtesy belong to a 
line of thought and action totally distinct from that of a 
legal compact with its definite obligations and advantages. 
Had the discussion in the board of directors of Union 
Seminary moved along the line of such a compact, nothing 
is more certain than that the plan of agreement would have 
failed utterly. 

No doubt there is an element of agreement in a legal 
compact. Every such compact is an agreement ; but there 
are many sorts of agreement which are only differing 
forms of good understanding, friendly arrangements, acts 
of generosity or courtesy, which lose their most essential 



32 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

virtue and all their beauty the moment you invest them 
with the rigidity and binding force of a legal contract. The 
discussion on reunion, and especially the speech of Dr. 
Musgrave before the Old School Assembly — heard, proba- 
bly, by most of the Union directors— had made the whole 
Presbyterian Church familiar with this distinction. " We 
will not consent," said Dr. Musgrave, referring to the 
recommendations about theological seminaries, boards, etc., 
"we will not consent to make these articles a covenant. 
We won't adopt them as a legal compact, binding upon the 
future • yet we are acting in good faith and as honorable 
men, and we say to you that we will not change them at 
any future time without obviously good and sufficient 
reasons" Exactly so would the directors of Union Semi- 
nary have expressed themselves with regard to their gener- 
ous arrangement with the General Assembly. Such words 
as " compact," " contract," M covenant," are carefully avoid- 
ed in the memorial of Union Seminary and in the action 
of the General Assembly thereupon. " Plan," " rule," 
"agreement," "method," or the like, are the terms used. 
It was intended, just as the ninth article in the report of 
the Joint Committee was intended, " as a measure for the 
maintenance of confidence and harmony, and not as indi- 
cating the best method for all future time" (Moore's 
Digest, p. 384). 

All that the article in the Princeton Review for April, 
1870, written by Dr. Charles Hodge, or with his approval, 
ventured to suggest to the New School branch was " mak- 
ing the simple by-law that all the elections to fill vacancies 
in the board or boards of oversight and direction, also of 
professors, shall be submitted to the Assembly for approval 
before they are finally ratified." "Who ever heard of a 
" simple by-law " that could not be suspended, changed, or 
repealed by the power that made it ? The difference be- 



THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 33 

tween the concessions asked, if not claimed, of the New 
School by the Old School opponents of the first plan of re- 
union, as reported by the Joint Committee in 1867, and 
the concessions hoped for just before the meeting of the 
Assembly of 1870, as stated in the above article of the 
Princeton Review, is very striking. It is the difference 
between a maximum and a minimum. Perhaps it cannot 
be better illustrated than by some extracts from a letter of 
Professor A. A. Hodge, of the Allegheny Seminary, to Dr. 
Henry B. Smith, written in December, 1867. The italics 
are his own : 

Although I am in every sense unknown to you, my knowl- 
edge of and indebtedness to you through your writings, and 
especially our community of interest in the subject of this 
letter, emboldens me to intrude it upon you, and to urge 
your deliberate attention to it. 

Undoubtedly one of the chief causes of uneasiness on the 
part of the Old School, in view of reunion upon the terms 
proposed by the Joint Committee, is the inequality between 
the positions of the two parties in respect to seminaries. 
This is evident from the fact that serious objection is made 
to the terms proposed in respect to this interest by a far 
larger number of presbyteries than is necessary to defeat the 
whole matter Now, although I write without consul- 
tation with or the knowledge of a single person, I feel certain 
that a compromise to the following effect would be highly 
gratifying to the great majority of those most nearly inter- 
ested in seminaries on our side, and further, that if proposed 
from your side it would be almost certainly accepted by our 
General Assembly as a condition of union. 

Suppose then tne matter be adjusted on the following 
principles : 

1. All the seminaries of both parties to be, as a condition 
of union, brought in on the same basis, so that there may be 
perfect equality. 



34 UXIOX SEMIXAEY AOT) THE ASSEMBLY. 

2. That you on your side admit the principle of direct 
ecclesiastical control, and put your seminaries each under 
the care of one or more contiguous synods. The synods to 
elect the boards of directors, the boards of directors to elect 
the professors. The General Assembly, for the sake of pre- 
serving uniformity of doctrine in the Church, to possess the 
right of peremptory veto in the case of the election of a pro- 
fessor. 

3. That we on our side yield the principle of the im- 
mediate control of the seminaries by the General Assembly, 
and put each of our seminaries under one or more synods in 
the manner specified above. 

Such a plan might have some legitimate objections. It 
would certainly meet with decided opposition from some of 
the more distant portions of our branch, which would there- 
by be dispossessed of powers previously enjoyed. It would 
be obviously unadvisable for such a proposition to be publicly 
offered by any of our professors. Therefore, I shall do no 

more than make this suggestion to you If you agree 

with me as to the plan, and are willing to present it to the 
representatives of your branch in the Joint Committee, I have 
much hope that it will prevail. 

Professor Smith, regarding the scheme so strongly urged 
in this interesting letter as wholly impracticable, felt un- 
willing to recommend it to the Xew School representatives 
of the Joint Committee. 

(e). Scope and limitations of the veto in the election of its 
Professors offered to the General Assembly by the 
Directors of Union Seminary in 1870. 

Passing from the question of the nature of this offer, let 
us consider its extent and limitations. The language used 
is very exact and carefully chosen. My impression is, that 
it differs materially from that used in the plan presented to 
the board on May 9th. Before the meeting on May 16th 



LIMITATIONS OF THE VETO POWEK. 35 

legal counsel had probably been taken. In nearly all, if 
not in all, the proposals and articles on the subject, prior to 
the meeting at Philadelphia, positive action by the General 
Assembly was contemplated as requisite to a complete elec- 
tion ; in other words, every election or appointment, in 
order to be complete, must be directly approved, or else 
disapproved, by the General Assembly. This would be in 
accordance with the usual practice in the political sphere. 
Ordinarily the veto power goes along with the power of 
approval and confirmation. It is so with the Presidential 
veto. It is so generally with the veto power of governors 
and mayors. But it was not so here ; and as a consequence, 
even the General Assembly itself, as we shall see, required 
twenty years fairly to learn the lesson of the extent of its 
power in the case. All that the Assembly can rightfully 
do, under the agreement of 1870, is either to disapprove or 
to do nothing. This shows how sagaciously the whole 
matter was finally arranged. The plan bears on its very 
face marks of the utmost caution and forethought. Had it 
included the power of approval, as well as of disapproval, 
every election reported between 1870 and 1891 would then 
have come before the Assembly for confirmation, and 
might have led to any amount of more or less excited 
discussion and conflict of opinion. An approval, if strenu- 
ously opposed by only a small minority, would be likely to 
prejudice even a good appointment; while an approval, 
carried by a bare majority, could hardly fail to stir up bad 
feeling among the friends of the candidate, if not in his 
own breast. Whatever evils are incident to the election of 
theological teachers by the General Assembly, the plan of 
1870 certainly reduces them to a minimum, as compared 
with a plan which should embrace the power of ratifying, 
as well as of vetoing, every appointment. It is likely that 
between May 9th and May 16th Dr. Adams not only took 



36 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

legal counsel, but that lie also sought the counsel of those 
two wise men and old friends, Dr. Stearns and Dr. Hat- 
field, with whom for nearly three years he had been in the 
habit of conferring on this yery question of the theological 
seminaries in the Joint Committee on Reunion, or in the 
New School branch of it. That the General Assembly, 
under the rule of 1870, has no power of approval 's ad- 
mitted now on all hands. 

But there is another point, concerning which there has 
been and is still direct conflict of opinion; the point, 
namely, whether the transfer of a member of the faculty 
from one chair to another is an election in the same sense 
as an original appointment, and therefore subject to the 
Assembly's veto. The General Assembly at Detroit as- 
sumed that a transfer does not differ from an original elec- 
tion, and by a large majority voted to disapprove the 
transfer of Dr. Briggs from the chair of Hebrew and cog- 
nate languages to the new chair of Biblical Theology. The 
position of the board of directors, on the other hand, was 
and is that the original election of Dr. Briggs, not having 
been disapproved by the General Assembly, fixed his 
status, once for all, as a member of the teaching faculty 
of Union Seminary ; and that his transfer to the chair of 
Biblical Theology could not therefore unsettle, suspend, or 
in any wise change that status ; it was simply an assign- 
ment of new and other duties, belonged solely to the 
jurisdiction of the board, and lay wholly beyond the control 
or supervision of the General Assembly. 

This view is enforced by several considerations: 1. It 
harmonizes with the exclusion from the plan, adopted by 
the directors on May 16th, of all direct power of approval. 
That exclusion indicates plainly the animus and latent, if 
not the deliberate, purpose of the board. I say " latent, 
if not deliberate, purpose," because no evidence exists that 



LIMITATIONS OF THE VETO POWER. 37 

in using the terms "election" and "appointment" there 
was any thought or suspicion in the mind of a single 
director present that the agreement included also a transfer 
from one chair to another. Not a word was lisped on this 
point.* Had it been raised then and there ; had Dr. 
Adams, in explaining his revised plan, said to the board : 
" I feel bound to tell you frankly that this plan, faithfully 
carried out, will of necessity render the internal administra- 
tion and housekeeping of Union Seminary, touching some 
of its most vital interests, subject to the ultimate control of 
the General Assembly," Mr. James' protest of May 9th 
would have been echoed throughout the room. The plan 
would have withered on the spot. Or, to state the case in 
another way, had the question been put to Dr. Adams : 
" Do you mean to include in the terms ' election ' and 
' appointment ' a transfer also, such as we often make 
from one chair to another % In our relations to the General 
Assembly will the original status of one of our professors 
be lost by calling him to new duties in the institution, until 
it has been recovered by subjecting him again to the veto 
of the General Assembly?" the prompt answer, I am 
quite sure, would have been : " Most certainly not ; that 

* Among the members of the faculty present was Dr. Philip 
Schaff. In a letter to me, Dr. Schaff, referring to Dr. Adams' 
proposal " as a generous peace-offering on the altar of the 
reunion of Old and New School," adds : 

My impression was that Dr. Adams had previously conferred with 
Dr. Charles Hodge, who in behalf of Princeton was anxious to get 
freedom from the control of the Assembly in the appointment of pro- 
fessors. Our loss was Princeton's gain. 

The distinction between the appointment of a new professor and 
the transfer of an old one to a new department was not mentioned, 
and probably not even thought of, at that time. I myself was trans- 
ferred three times — to the Hebrew, to the Greek, and to Church His- 
tory — and nothing was said about a veto. 



38 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

goes without saying. "We are proposing to enter, not into 
a legal compact, but into a friendly and courteous arrange- 
ment by which the General Assembly shall have a voice in 
respect to the qualifications of every man who is to be a 
theological teacher in our Seminary. But once admitted, 
unforbidden, into our faculty, the Assembly will have 
nothing further to do with him except indirectly, of course, 
as a Presbyterian minister. "We are not trying to drive a 
bargain, but to do what seems to us a fair and wise, not to 
say very generous, thing in the interest of the peace and 
prosperity of the reunited Church." 

2. But even assuming, for an instant, that the plan of 
1870 was a legal compact, binding as such upon the future, 
it should yet be interpreted in strictest accordance with its 
specific design. "Whatever power it concedes is a power of 
trust; and if that power can be rightly delegated at all, 
which I will not here discuss, it should certainly be dele- 
gated in such manner and with such careful limitations as 
to preclude all suspicion of tampering or dealing lightly 
with the trust. "We may, indeed, distinguish between the 
trustee and the director, but we must not divide them. 
The chartered rights and duties of the board cross and run 
into each other. The office of every director of Union 
Seminary is a sacred trust ; a trust not merely for property, 
but for something infinitely more precious and enduring 
— the moral and spiritual treasures of the institution ; its 
grand design as a school of divinity ; the good deeds and 
worth of its excellent founders ; the fame of its learned, 
wise, and godly teachers ; the glorious achievements of its 
alumni in the service of their Master ; the memories of its 
munificent friends and benefactors ; in a word, its invalu- 
able history and traditions. Hence every director, before 
entering upon his duties, is required to take this solemn 
pledge : 



LIMITATIONS OF THE VETO POWER. 39 

Approving of the plan and constitution of the Union 
Theological Seminary in the city of New York, and of the 
Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Presbyterian form 
of church government, I do solemnly promise to maintain the 
same so long as I shall continue to be a member of the 
board of directors. 

3. And then it seems to me a strong incidental con- 
firmation of the view taken by the directors of Union 
Seminary with regard to the scope of the agreement of 
1870, that the official minutes of the board take for 
granted the correctness of that view. The board has 
again and again assigned its professors to new duties and 
to new chairs. Three times it transferred Dr. Schaff from 
one chair to another. Last winter it created a new chair, 
and selected Dr. Briggs to fill it, transferring Dr. Brown at 
the same time to the chair vacated by Dr. Briggs. The 
record of these and similar changes on the minutes of the 
board varies in language. The terms " elected," " chosen," 
"appointed," "transferred," have been used more or less 
indiscriminately ; and that for the simple reason that in the 
mind of the board there was no thought of any question 
touching its own proper authority in each case. Transfer 
is evidently the fitting term, expressing both the fact and 
the power ; and this is the word which has of late years been 
chiefly employed in the minutes of the executive commit- 
tee and of the board of directors of Union Seminary. If 
all " appointments " in the literal sense are subject to the 
veto of the General Assembly, temporary assignments of 
duty would have to be reported to the Assembly; for 
nothing is more common than to " appoint " a professor to 
such special duties. 

4. There is still another consideration which sustains the 
view that a transfer is wholly different from an original 
election ; the fact, namely, that the strict rules of procedure 



40 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

in the original election have not been observed in the case 
of a mere transfer. The disregard of these rules has in 
repeated instances been so positive and varied as to in- 
validate the whole action of the board, if a transfer is the 
same thing as an original appointment. Alike in the open 
disregard of some of these rules and in inducting at once 
into the new or vacant chair without any respect to the 
General Assembly — as, for example, in the case of Dr. 
Briggs — we have a clear demonstration that in the view of the 
board of directors of Union Seminary a transfer has always 
been regarded as simply an assignment of duties, and sub- 
ject, therefore, neither to the veto of the General Assem- 
bly nor to a strict observance of the usual forms prescribed 
by law and custom in first calling a man to the service of 
the Seminary. 

In the discussion of the extent of the Assembly's veto 
power the singular point has been made that we ought to 
distinguish between the different chairs and the subject- 
matter taught in them. A Jew, for example — so I have 
heard it argued by at least two eminent directors in a lead- 
ing Presbyterian seminary — a Jew might make an excel- 
lent professor of Hebrew ; but suppose, hiding behind the 
technicality of a transfer, you should put him into the chair 
of Systematic Theology, would that not be a case for the 
intervention of the General Assembly's veto power? I 
reply, No ; not if the Assembly had failed to disapprove 
of his taking the chair of Hebrew. I freely admit that 
there are devout, God-fearing Jews, abundantly qualified 
to be professors of Hebrew in any theological seminary. 
Isaac ^Nordheimer, my own beloved teacher, was such a 
man ; but the best and most learned Jew in the world could 
not get into the chair of Hebrew in Union Seminary, to 
say nothing of his transfer to the chair of Systematic The- 
ology, for how could a Jew sincerely adopt the West- 



THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 41 

minster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doc- 
trine taught in the Holy Scriptures ? Here is the pledge 
taken by every professor, whatever may be his chair : 

I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 
to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and 
practice ; and I do now, in the presence of God and the 
directors of this Seminary, solemnly and sincerely receive and 
adopt the "Westminster Confession of Faith as containing the 
system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. I do also, 
in like manner, approve of the Presbyterian Form of Govern- 
ment ; and I do solemnly promise that I will not teach or 
inculcate anything which shall appear to me to be subversive 
of said system of doctrines, or of the principles of said 
Form of Government, so long as I shall continue to be a 
professor in the Seminary. 

(f). Acceptance of the offer of Union Seminary made to 
the General Assembly in its memorial of 1870. 

Let us now go back to the meeting of the Assembly in 
Philadelphia. Dr. Adams, as we have seen, was appointed 
chairman of the Standing Committee on Theological Sem- 
inaries. He asked, as a personal favor, I repeat, to be ex- 
cused from serving in that capacity, on the ground that all 
the seminaries under the care of the Assembly belonged to 
what had been the Old School branch, but his request was 
not granted. Before this Committee came the memorial 
of Union Theological Seminary and also a memorial from 
Princeton of similar tenor; the difference between them 
being that Princeton asked what it deemed a great favor to 
itself, while Union asked what it believed would be a great 
favor to Princeton and other seminaries. The report of the 
Committee led to no discussion, met with no opposition, 
and was unanimously adopted. Here follow some extracts 
from this report : 



42 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

That the relations of these several theological seminaries, 
differing in origin and administration, to the reunited Church 
should be regarded as a matter of no little delicacy and diffi- 
culty, was inevitable. On the one hand it is obvious that a 
matter so important as the education of its ministry should 
in some way be under the supervision and control of the 
Church, so as to secure the entire and cordial confidence of 
the Church. On the other hand, there is a liberty and flexi- 
bility in the matter which must be respected and allowed. 
If individuals or associations are disposed to found and en- 
dow seminaries of their own, there is no power in the Pres- 
byterian Church to forbid it. 

As to any project by which the entire control and admin- 
istration of all our theological seminaries, — for example, as to 
the election of trustees, — can be transferred to the General 
Assembly on any principle of complete uniformity, your 
Committee regard it as wholly impracticable, and the attempt 
to accomplish it altogether undesirable. To bring it about, 
should it be undertaken, would require an amount of legisla- 
tion, in six or seven different States, which would be por- 
tentous. 

Besides, the intentions and wishes of benevolent men 
who have founded and endowed some of these seminaries, 
and aided others on their present footing, should be honora- 
bly and zealously protected. 

Your Committee, therefore, would recommend no change 
and no attempt at change in this direction, save such as may 
safely and wisely be effected under existing charters. For 
example, the directors of the seminary at Princeton have 
memorialized this Assembly with the request that the Assem- 
bly would so far change its " plan " of control over that in- 
stitution as to give the board of directors enlarged rights in 
several specified particulars, subject to the veto of the Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

Your Committee are unanimously of the opinion that the 
changes asked for are eminently wise and proper. If it were 



THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 43 

within the power of the General Assembly to remit the en- 
tire administration of this venerable institution to its board 
of directors without any of the restrictions they have men- 
tioned as to the supply of their own vacancies, they would 
cordially recommend it. But inasmuch as the endowments 
of this Seminary are held on the condition that it should be 
the property and under the control of the General Assembly 
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, that trust 
cannot be vacated nor transferred to any other body. The 
method desired and proposed by the directors themselves is 
open to no such objection, and is believed to be quite within 
the provisions of the law as now denned, being only a con- 
venient and wise mode of executing by the General Assem- 
bly itself the trust which it now holds. 

A memorial has been presented to this Assembly from the 
directors of Union Theological Seminary, in New York, bear- 
ing upon the point of uniformity as to a certain kind and 
amount of ecclesiastical supervision. 

It had appeared to them — many of them having taken an 
active part in founding that Seminary thirty-three years ago, 
in a time, as already noticed, of memorable excitement — that 
there were great disadvantages and perils in electing profes- 
sors and teachers by the Assembly itself, without sufficient 
time or opportunity for acquaintance with the qualifications 
of men to be appointed to offices of such responsibility. 

It is self-evident, as your Committee are agreed, that a 
body so large as the General Assembly, and composed of 
men resident, most of them, at so great a distance from the 
several seminaries, is not so competent to arrange for their 
interests and usefulness as those having local and personal 
intimacy with them. Desirous of bringing about as much 
uniformity as was possible in the relation of the seminaries 
to the General Assembly of the Church, the directors of 
Union Seminary have memorialized this Assembly to the 
effect that the Assembly would commit, so far as practicable, 
the general administration of all seminaries now under the 



44 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

control of the Assembly to their several boards of directors ; 
proposing, if this be done, to give to the General Assembly 
what it does not now possess, the right of veto in the election 
of professors at Union. In this generous offer, looking solely 
to the peace and harmony of the Church, the memorialists 
did not include the same veto in regard to the election of 
their own directors, inasmuch as these directors hold the 
property of the Seminary in trust. The trustees of Princeton 
Seminary, being one of two boards, are a close corporation. 
The directors of Union Seminary in New York, being but 
one board, are the trustees. 

Leaving all the diversities of method and administration 
in the several seminaries intact, save in the particulars here- 
inafter provided for, your Committee are happy to report 
that there is one mode of unifying all the seminaries of the 
Presbyterian Church as to ecclesiastical supervision, so far as 
unification is in any way desirable. It is the mode suggested 
in the several memorials of the directors of Union and Prince- 
ton, and approved, or likely to be approved, from informa- 
tion in our possession, by the directors of Auburn and Lane. 
This is to give to the General Assembly a veto power upon 
the appointment of professors in all these several institutions. 
This seems to your Committee to secure all the uniformity, 
as to the relation of these seminaries to the Church, which 
can be necessary to ensure general confidence and satisfac- 
tion. Less than this might excite jealousy, more than this is 
cumbersome and undesirable.* 

* The full report will be found in Moore's Digest of 1886, 
pp. 383-386. It is proper to say here, that two statements 
in the report are somewhat inaccurate ; namely, that relating 
to the ecclesiastical connection in 1836 of the founders of 
Union Seminary, and that relating to "the design of its 
founders." Their own language touching this point, as also 
the facts with regard to their ecclesiastical connection, are 
given in an earlier part of this paper. 



THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 45 

I have said that the report of the Standing Committee 
on Theological Seminaries met with no opposition. The 
offer of Union Seminary, which was wholly unexpected to 
the great body of commissioners, whether of the Old or 
New School, made the happiest impression upon the As- 
sembly and called forth strong words of satisfaction and 
thankfulness. And yet the Committee appear to have 
been in some doubt whether all the seminaries, then be- 
longing to the General Assembly, would be willing to pass 
from under its immediate control; for the report closes 
with this resolution : 

In case the board of directors of any theological semi- 
nary now under the control of the General Assembly should 
prefer to retain their present relation to this body, the plan 
of such seminary shall remain unaltered. 

Whatever doubt, if any, led to this provision, it was 
speedily solved in the acceptance of the Princeton plan 
by all the other seminaries hitherto belonging to the Old 
School ; while Lane, that, like Union, was independent of ec- 
clesiastical control, and Auburn, which was under the watch 
and care of four adjacent synods, fell in also with the new 
arrangement by conceding to the General Assembly a veto 
over the election of their professors. I do not find that, 
at the time, these changes involved any public discussion, 
or even attracted public notice. Such was the confiding 
and hopeful temper of the reunited Church, that they seem 
to have followed the action at Philadelphia almost as a 
matter of course. 

And yet it would be untrue to say that the new order of 
things at once allayed all the " apprehensions " and " jeal- 
ousy," referred to in the report of the Standing Committee 
on theological seminaries at Philadelphia. "Apprehen- 
sions," if not " jealousy," did continue to exist, especially at 



46 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

Princeton ; otherwise it would be scarcely possible to ex- 
plain some facts in the case, notorious at the time. To 
show that I do not speak at random, I will give an item 
sent by me to The Evangelist shortly after the Assembly 
of 1870 had adjourned. It was as follows : 

A STRANGE EXCEPTION. 

In appointing directors of its theological seminaries, as 
also trustees and members of its various boards, the Gen- 
eral Assembly seems to have been actuated by an admirable 
spirit of wisdom, fairness, and liberality. In this spirit it 
actually removed six of its own trustees, all of them gentle- 
men of the highest character, in order to give due repre- 
sentation to the late New School side. The same excellent 
spirit was shown in choosing ten new directors for the semi- 
nary of the Northwest. But there is one marked exception, 
which, we frankly confess, has struck us, as we know it has 
struck others, with a good deal of surprise. We refer to the 
new directors of Princeton Seminary. They are as follows : 

Directors of Princeton Seminary. — Ministers : William D. 
Snodgrass, D.D., Joseph McElroy, D.D., G. W. Musgrave, 
D.D., Eobert Hammill, D.D., Joseph T. Smith, D.D., Bobert 
Davidson, D.D., Gardiner Spring, D.D. Elders : Bobert 
Carter, John K. Finley, George Sharswood, LL.D., Thomas 
C. M. Paton, to fill the place of Moses Allen. 

In The Evangelist of the following week appeared a 
careful editorial, entitled "Princeton Theological Semi- 
nary," and I give herewith extracts from this article, under- 
scoring some passages, in order that they may the more 
easily be compared with the official reports of the Joint 
Committee and of the action of the General Assemblies, 
cited in earlier parts of this paper : 

A paragraph in our last paper referred to the reappoint- 
ment of the former directors of this Seminary, all of whom 
belonged to the former Old School branch of the Church, as 



THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 47 

an apparent exception to the rule of the late General Assem- 
bly to unite representatives of both branches in all its ap- 
pointments. We are happy to be informed that the impres- 
sion of inequality conveyed by our statement is not warranted 
by the facts, and that so far from being an exception to the 
rule of courtesy and fairness observed by the Assembly, this 
reappointment of the former directors of Princeton was only 

another instance of the same generous spirit The 

Joint Committee on Eeunion unanimously recognized it as 
fair and proper that while the New School seminaries were, 
and after the union must continue to be, under the exclusive 
control of New School men, by whom they had been founded 
and endowed, the Old School seminaries should, in like man- 
ner, be under the direction of Old School men. The Com- 
mittee therefore proposed, as one of the terms of reunion, that 
any of these seminaries might withdraw from the control of 
the united Assembly. This, however, could not be done in 
the case of the Old School seminaries, as all their endow- 
ments were held on the condition of their being under the 
General Assembly. It was therefore next proposed that the 
boards of directors should be authorized to elect professors, 
and to fill their own vacancies, subject to the veto of the 
General Assembly. Thus no man could be either a professor 
or director who has not the confidence of the body repre- 
senting the whole Church. This plan was adopted by a unan- 
imous vote of the Assembly. It must be noted, however, that 
this rule, so far as directors are concerned, applies only to 
" the seminaries now under the control of the General Assem- 
bly." The choice of directors under the former New School 
seminaries is not subject to such veto. It seemed then only 
courteous and fair that if the boards of directors on the one 
side must of necessity remain unchanged, those on the other 
side should occupy a similar position, and hence that the 
gentlemen whose terms of service at Princeton had just ex- 
pired, should be re-elected. This was only carrying out the 
same spirit of candor which has marked all the Assembly's 
proceedings. 



48 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

This article, whether written by the Old School editor 
of The Evangelist or by some one else, was so hopelessly 
confused that I despaired of trying to correct its errors. 
Almost every statement about the action of the Joint Com- 
mittee on Reunion or that of the Assembly is inaccurate ; 
while its statements about the former New School semi- 
naries are directly contrary to the facts in the case. Union 
Seminary, even hefore the close of 1869, had elected two 
ministers of what, a few weeks earlier, were Old School 
churches, namely, Dr. John Hall and Dr. James O. Murray, 
to fill two clerical vacancies in its board of directors ; and in 
1870 it filled three more vacancies by the election of three 
prominent laymen of the late Old School. It was not until 
1873 that Princeton elected a director who had belonged to 
the New School. One of its last directors of distinctively 
New School antecedents was chosen, I believe, in 1882, 
viz., the Eev. Eobert Eussell Booth, D.D., of New York, 
who is still a member of the Princeton board. Of course, 
as the years pass away, all special thought of these obsolete 
ecclesiastical names is passing away with them. It is only 
fair to add that in no instance, so far as I am aware, have 
former New School men, elected to such boards of former 
Old School institutions, dishonored the confidence reposed 
in them. There may have been such cases ; if so, I never 
heard of them. 



III. 



SKETCH OF THE OPERATION AND EFFECTS OF THE ASSEM- 
BLY'S VETO POWER IN THE ELECTION OF THEOLOGICAL 
PROFESSORS FROM 1870 TO THE PRESENT TIME. 

I have thus endeavored to trace from stage to stage the 
course of discussion and of action with regard to theological 
seminaries in the Joint Committee on Reunion, in the Old 



MISAPPREHENSION AS TO THE VETO POWER. 49 

and New School General Assemblies, in the board of direct- 
ors of Union Seminary, and lastly in the first Assembly of 
the reunited Church. It has been my aim to give as far 
as possible all the main facts, omitting nothing essential to 
a right understanding of the case. At the beginning of 
the investigation my mind was very much in the dark 
respecting a number of important points, but after patient 
research and inquiry, now and then not a little to my own 
surprise, the needed light appeared. I will now proceed 
to a sketch of the practical working and effects of the As- 
sembly's veto power from 1870 to the present time. 

(a). Early and frequent misapprehension of the extent of 
this power on the part of the General Assembly. 

The facts bearing on this point are equally curious and 
instructive. They are curious as an illustration of the 
tendency in all popular bodies — a tendency partly innate, 
and in part the effect of ignorance, prejudice, or passion — 
to stretch their prerogative in the exercise of power. The 
facts are instructive as illustrating the old maxim that " the 
price of liberty is eternal vigilance," and also the painful 
truth that even a court of Jesus Christ is not exempt from 
the infirmities of human nature. Good men when, armed 
with authority, they meet together for the performance of 
important duties and the promotion of sacred objects, mean, 
of course, to do the thing that is right, and, especially, to 
keep the whole law under which they act ; but how 
strangely they often err, on the right hand and on the left ! 

Nothing would seem to be plainer than the power of 
disapproval as conceded to the General Assembly in 1870, 
and yet upon the very first opportunity to exercise this 
power, at Chicago in 1871, the Standing Committee on 
Theological Seminaries recommended the ''approval" of 
certain elections reported to the Assembly ; and had it not 



50 UNIO^ SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

been for the presence of Henry B. Smith as commissioner 
from the Presbytery of New York, the recommendation 
would no doubt have been unanimously adopted. The 
" official journal " of the Assembly contains the following 
record : 

UNION SEMINAKY. 

Prof. Henry B. Smith, D.D., LL.D., of Union Theological 
Seminary, New York City, moved an amendment to the 
report of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries 
thus : 

Resolved, That the clauses of the report of the committee 
be modified or stricken out which express in the name of the 
Assembly "approval" of the elections of directors or pro- 
fessors in the seminaries that have adopted the plan sug- 
gested by Union Seminary, and ratified by the Assembly in 
1870 [see minutes, pp. 64, 65, 148] ; since according to 
said plan such elections are complete unless " vetoed " by the 
Assembly to which they are reported. 

Dr. Musgrave hoped this amendment would be sustained. 
Union Seminary has courteously, and as he thought wisely, 
conceded this measure of control over it by the General 
Assembly, and it was only fair and honorable to accept this 
amendment. It was so ordered. 

One would have supposed that this formal interpretation 
of the extent of its veto power contained in the resolution 
offered by Prof. Smith, and seconded by Dr. Musgrave as 
"only fair and honorable," by a unanimous vote of the 
Assembly itself, would have settled the question for all 
time. It did no such thing. Only two years later at 
Baltimore the Standing Committee on Theological Semina- 
ries repeated the error of 1871, and was sustained in doing 
so by the unanimous vote of the General Assembly.* Nor 

* The committee would recommend that tbe Assembly 



QUIESCENCE OF THE VETO POWER. 51 

was that the last of this remarkable misapprehension. Since 
1870 about sixty elections, appointments, and transfers 
have been reported to the General Assembly. Of these 
some twenty have been "recognized," "approved," or 
their " confirmation " voted by the General Assembly ; 
in other words, in a third of the cases reported, the Gen- 
eral Assembly did what it had, confessedly, no legal power 
to do.* These figures will be found nearly, if not 
altogether, accurate, and they show how easily the most 
intelligent and conscientious ecclesiastical bodies are led to 
exercise power that does not belong to them. The chronic 
misapprehension of which I am speaking cropped out at 
almost every turn in the newspaper discussions of the veto 
power, before and after the meeting of the last Assembly, 
and also at Detroit itself. 

(b). Quiescence of the Assembly's veto power from 
1870 to 1891. 

For twenty years the veto power, conceded to the Gen- 
eral Assembly in 1870 by Union Seminary, remained qui- 
escent. During all this period it was never used. While 
many appointments were " confirmed," or " approved " — 
illegally, to be sure — not one was vetoed ; a striking proof, 

approve the election of the Kev. Philip Schaff, D.D., to the 
Brown professorship of Hebrew, and of the Kev. George L. 
Prentiss, D.D., to the Skinner and McAlphin professorship of 
Pastoral Theology, Church Polity, and Missionary [Mission] 
Work. [See minutes of 1873, page 580.] 

* Except in the case of Auburn Seminary. On entering 
into connection with the General Assembly this Seminary, in 
1873, as I shall show later, had adopted a by-law by which 
the appointments of its professors were "primarily made 
conditional upon the approval of the General Assembly." 
Why this vital change in the agreement of 1870 was made 



52 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

certainly, of the brotherly harmony and good-will that 
prevailed in the reunited Church, as also of the wise pru- 
dence of our theological seminaries in the choice of their 
teachers. It seemed, indeed, as if the fears of Henry B. 
Smith, D. "Willis James, and others, who regarded the 
agreement of 1870 with so much misgiving, were shown by 
the test of experience to have been groundless. The veto 
power, however, was not wholly forgotten. In the case of 
Rev. P. W. Patterson, D.D., in 1873, and perhaps in a few 
other instances, a professor-elect and his friends were re- 
minded, in a somewhat menacing way, that such a power, 
though dormant, was still in existence, and might of a 
sudden wake up.* 

(e). Sudden use of the veto power in 1891. 

Wherever real power exists, it is sure to make itself felt. 
Its turn always comes, sooner or later ; nor is the opportuni- 
ty apt to be neglected, when a much-desired object, whether 
good or bad, can be secured by its exercise. What is called 
the spoils system, for example — a system which has done 
so much to poison and vulgarize our political life — is 

by the board of commissioners of Auburn Seminary, I do 
not know. But, of course, that Seminary alone was bound 
by it. 

* In 1873 my appointment to a professorship in the then 
Northwestern Theological Seminary was threatened with veto 
on the ground that I had lately in the Swing trial expressed 
the wish that the Confession of Faith might soon be revised. 
How would that sound now ? But my orthodox opponents 
were quieted, as I was afterward informed, by the statement 
of the Committee on Seminaries, that in not vetoing the 
Assembly would not necessarily approve. Time changes both 
sentiment and logic. [Letter of Rev. Dr. Patterson, dated 
Evanston, HI., Aug. 14, 1891.] 



SUDDEN USE OF THE VETO POWER. 53 

largely the outgrowth of that simple power of removal, 
which the Congress of 1Y89 decided to belong exclusively 
to the President. At the time nobody seems to have 
dreamed that any special harm would come through an 
abuse of the power. Mr. Madison, whose influence was 
most potent in this decision of the first Congress, declared 
that if a. President should exercise his power of removal 
from mere personal motives, or except in extreme cases, he 
would deserve to be impeached. And for more than a 
third of a century Executive patronage was used solely as 
a public trust by Washington and the other great patriots 
who then ruled the country. Even after 1820, when the 
mischievous Four Years' law was passed, during the 
second term of Monroe and the whole term of John 
Quincy Adams, very few removals were made, and those 
in every case for cause. Only here and there a far-seeing 
statesman surmised what, during the next third of a cen- 
tury, lay wrapped up in the unlimited power of removal, 
when, instead of being used as a public trust, it was going 
to be so largely prostituted to vulgar greed and the ruthless 
animosities of selfish partisanship. How different it is 
now! The spoils system has come to be regarded, not 
merely by a few far-seeing statesmen, but by tens of 
thousands of our most thoughtful and patriotic citizens, of 
both parties, as, on the whole, the greatest evil that, since 
the overthrow of slavery, besets the moral life of the 
country. While I am writing this paper in a lovely moun- 
tain valley of Vermont, one of the most distinguished of 
her sons is depicting her heroic services in the Revolu- 
tionary war and the civic virtues which rendered her so 
meet, in advance of all others, to join the Old Thirteen by 
admission to the Union. It is a romantic and inspiring 
story, told with an eloquence not unworthy of Daniel 
Webster or of Edward Everett. And I find in it this 



54 UNIOj* SEMIj^AEY akd the assembly. 

golden passage : '* "We have lived to see the prohibition of 
slavery in the earliest constitution of Yermont, become a 
part of the fundamental law of this nation. May the time 
be not far off when its declaration against that other and 
more widespread curse which corrupts and degrades free 
government, shall be likewise put in force by the body of 
the American people." * 

I have given an illustration from our political history 
of the way in which power long quiescent may of a sud- 
den, when the fitting opportunity occurs, spring into vigor- 
ous and baleful action. Illustrations still more impressive 
might be drawn from the history of the Christian Church. 

Months before the Assembly met at Detroit it became 
apparent to observing eyes that the transfer of the Rev. 
Charles A. Briggs, D.D., to the new chair of Biblical The- 
ology in Union Seminary was to be sharply contested, and, 
if possible, vetoed. The contest, of course, would rest upon 
the ground that a transfer is equivalent to an original elec- 
tion, and subject, therefore, to the disapproval of the Gen- 
eral Assembly. There had long existed throughout the 
Presbyterian Church great dissatisfaction with some of Dr. 
Briggs' views as expressed in his writings ; and had oppor- 
tunity occurred sooner, it would doubtless have been seized 
to attempt his removal, by act of the General Assembly, 
from the Faculty of Union Seminary. 

The feeling against Dr. Briggs, already existing and 
widespread, was very much intensified by the address ^vhich 
he delivered on being inducted into his new chair, January 
20, 1891. In response to this address a large number of 
Presbyteries overtured the General Assembly on the sub- 
ject. The address also led to the initiation of a judicial 

* Oration at the dedication of the Bennington Battle Monu- 
ment, etc., etc., by E. J. Phelps. 



THE COMMISSIONERS AND VETO AT DETROIT, 55 

process in the Presbytery of "New York. When the Gen- 
eral Assembly met on the 21st of May, the excitement 
about Dr. Briggs and his case had reached a very high 
pitch. The press, both religious and secular, discussed the 
matter with extraordinary interest. There had been nothing 
like it since the reunion ; nothing, in truth, like or equal 
to it since the tempestuous days of 1837-38, when both 
the ecclesiastical and theological storm-centre swept down 
with such fury on the old City of Brotherly Love. And 
the key to the whole situation was the veto power. Had 
it been admitted on all hands that a transfer differs essen- 
tially from an original election, and is not subject to the 
Assembly's disapproval, there still might have been a Dr. 
Briggs case, but it would not have been the case that in 
May last drew the attention of the whole country to 
Detroit. 

(d). The General Assembly at Detroit, and how to judge 
its course. 
Although my impression of the action of the General 
Assembly at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs is anything 
but favorable, my impression of the Assembly itself is 
favorable, on the whole, in a high degree. Judging from 
all I have read and what I have heard from the lips of 
those who were present as lookers-on, it seems to me to 
have been a superior body of Christian men. They came 
from far and near, from city and country, from the Atlan- 
tic and the Pacific shores, and from the most distant parts 
of heathendom. They differed immensely in age, in train- 
ing, in experience, in temperament, in social habits and 
tastes, in their way of looking at things, in the types of 
piety and religious thought which they represented ; but 
they were very much alike in their love to Jesus Christ, 
in their faith in His blessed gospel, in their reverence for 
the Holy Scriptures, in their God-fearing patriotism and 



56 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

philanthropy. Eye-witnesses told me that they never saw 
a body of good men who appeared more sincerely desirous 
to do right, and to do it in a Christian spirit. I was espe- 
cially touched by what I heard about Judge Breckinridge, 
for it recalled pleasant boyish impressions of his distin- 
guished and excellent father. He belonged to a historic 
family, and his own character added honor to the name. 
Only the evening before his sudden death he expressed to 
a friend of mine his keen anxiety respecting the case of 
Dr. Briggs, and his deep sense of responsibility in the vote 
he was about to give. His last words attest how sincerely 
he spoke. 

It is quite possible to respect and even admire a man's 
character, and to take for granted the purity of his motives, 
without always approving his conduct or assenting to his 
logic. And what is thus true with regard to individuals 
may be no less true with regard to a body of men, to a 
party, to a community, and to a whole people. Were it 
not so, history, instead of being one of the most interesting 
and instructive of studies, would be repulsive and demoral- 
izing beyond expression. It will ever redound to the honor 
of the American people that when the stress and agony of 
their struggle for national life and freedom was once passed, 
the whirlwind of embittered passions it had aroused began 
to subside, just as the waves of an angry sea dashing upon 
a rock-bound coast die away after the storm is over. And 
these passions have been subsiding ever since. The mag- 
nanimous and patriotic sentiments of mutual confidence, 
love, patience, and brotherhood, which are the crowning 
glory of our Christian civilization, have been more and 
more taking their place, and will continue to do so, let us 
hope, until the billows of sectional strife shall have 

quite forgot to rave, 

While birds of calm sit brooding on the charmed wave. 



THE COMMISSIONERS AND VETO AT DETROIT. 57 

Or, to take an illustration from our Presbyterian annals, 
was not the reunion of the severed branches of the Church 
in 1869 a genuine triumph of similar sentiments? We re- 
tained, whoever cared to do so, our old differences of opin- 
ion respecting the causes and merits, or demerits, of the 
Exscinding Acts, the Disruption of 1838, and the thirty 
years of alienation between Old School and New School ; 
but for all that, led, no doubt, by a Divine hand, we came 
together again in the spirit of mutual trust and love, for- 
giving and forgetting, in order that we might the more 
effectually do the good works foreordained for us as a 
Church to walk in. And yet, even to this day, how far are 
we from thinking alike about the events of 1837-38, or 
about the wisdom of the men who taught and led the con- 
tending schools ! But it now costs us probably no great 
effort to admit that they, at all events, were good men, fear- 
ing G-od, and honestly meaning, as well as trying, to keep 
His commandments. 

For myself, I remember well the day when to my youth- 
ful fancy Albert Barnes was the very embodiment of pious 
good sense, meek wisdom, and uprightness, as well as free- 
dom, of mind in the interpretation of Holy Scripture ; 
while Robert J. Breckinridge appeared to me as a pugna- 
cious theological " fire-eater,'' a domineering ecclesiastic, 
and a persecutor of the saints. My impression of Albert 
Barnes was only confirmed when, years later, I learned to 
love and revere him as a personal friend. But time and 
memorable hours, a third of a century ago, of most inter- 
esting talk with him, in the company of Henry B. Smith, 
Roswell D. Hitchcock and other congenial spirits, quite 
revolutionized my impression of Robert J. Breckinridge ; 
and while not much changing my opinion of certain feat- 
ures of his course in 1837-38, his relentless hostility to re- 
union, or his way of doing things, I have ever since had 



58 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

no trouble whatever in thinking of him as a devoted servant 
of the Lord, as an able theologian, an humble Christian, a 
great-hearted patriot, and a brave, even if a somewhat rugged, 
type of old Kentucky manhood. 

While, then, I feel bound to criticise the Assembly's 
action in the case of Dr. Briggs as unfair, wrong, and un- 
wise in the extreme, let no one suppose me to be imputing 
bad motives either to the Assembly or to the men who, as 
I think, misled it. If any of them or their advisers were 
actuated by such motives, that is not my business ; let them 
answer for it to their own consciences and to God. But I 
go further than this. So far from imputing unworthy 
motives to most of the commissioners to the Assembly at 
Detroit, I can readily believe that they were actuated by the 
best of motives. By their votes, in disapproval of Dr. 
Briggs' transfer to the chair of Biblical Theology, they 
meant to express no personal hostility to him, but a hos- 
tility to what they had read or been assured, a hundred 
times over, and what they honestly supposed, were his opin- 
ions and teaching respecting the inspiration and authority 
of the Holy Scriptures. And had I been a member of the 
Assembly, viewed the subject as they did, and deemed it 
right to vote at all, my vote would have gone with theirs. 
From the bottom of my heart I sympathize with all pious 
and tender feelings toward the Bible, with jealousy of any 
rival to its authority, with pain and grief at seeing it assailed 
from without or lightly esteemed in the house of its friends, 
and with awe of the divine majesty and glory of its truths. 
Perhaps more or less of ignorance and prejudice may be 
mixed up with these sentiments. Be it so ; but how much 
of prejudice and ignorance is apt to be mixed up with 
everybody's best sentiments! If I must choose between 
ignorant and prejudiced but sincere love to the Word of 
God on the one hand, and on the other a rationalistic, fault- 



THE COMMISSIONERS AND VETO AT DETROIT. 59 

finding temper of mind toward it, I infinitely prefer the 
former. The Word of God, which liveth and abideth for- 
ever, is the snre foundation and the germinant principle of 
American piety. It was so in the beginning of our religi- 
ous life as a people ; it has been so ever since ; and unless 
we prove recreant to our great trust, it will be so in all the 
years to come. So far as criticism of the Bible, whether 
literary or theological, aims or tends to subvert this founda- 
tion and put something else in place of this principle, I, for 
one, am opposed to it utterly. And were it not my belief 
that Dr. Briggs could and would say Amen to this senti- 
ment, I should be equally opposed to him also. Biblical 
criticism, whether of the higher or lower sort, as I have said 
elsewhere, is very far from being an exact science, and it 
mars its own best work just in the degree that it puts on 
the airs of an exact science, and shouts before it is out of 
the woods. That has been the bane of rationalism, and if 
co-existing with it, is none the less a bane of the most ortho- 
dox Christian scholarship. " Seest thou a man wise in his 
own conceit ? There is more hope of a fool than of him." 
This sensef ul proverb applies not to persons alone. It ap- 
plies also to every kind of knowledge relating to moral and 
religious truth, more especially to every branch of knowl- 
edge that deals with Holy Scripture. Scholarship may be 
never so able and learned, yet if it be puffed up with self- 
conceit, if not animated by the spirit of humility and rever- 
ence, it is certain to go astray. " Let no man," to use the 
words of Lord Bacon, " upon a weak conceit of sobriety or 
an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can 
search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's 
Word or in the book of God's works, divinity or philoso- 
phy ; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress and 
proficience in both ; only let men beware that they apply 
both to charity and not to swelling ; to use, and not to 
ostentation." 



60 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

(e). The Case against Dr. Briggs as argued ly John J. 

McCoolc. 

Of course the case against Dr. Briggs was set before the 
commissioners in a variety of ways, as well before they left 
home as upon their reaching the Assembly. Probably its 
most plausible presentation upon their arrival at Detroit, 
was in a lawyer's brief prepared by John J. McCook, a 
well-known member of the New York Bar.* This brief, 
bristling with points, and fortified by an array of legal au- 
thority, was well fitted prima facie to impress the ordinary 
lay or even clerical mind. I opened my own copy, not with- 
out some misgiving, lest the ground against vetoing Dr. 
Briggs, which had seemed to me so firm, should slip from 
under my feet. Let me add in passing, that had the friends 
of Union Seminary been as wise and zealous in their gener- 
ation as their friends, the enemies of Dr. Briggs, the result 
at Detroit might have been quite different. 

It is noteworthy that a lawyer's brief, prepared with such 
care, and so confident in its tone, should betray an utter 
misapprehension of one of the most obvious and vital feat- 
ures of the veto power, as conceded by Union Seminary to 
the General Assembly. It is solely, as the General Assem- 
bly itself decided in 1871, the power of ^approval ; and 
yet this brief, again and again, assumes that it was no less 
the power of approval. Here are instances : " Thus, all 
appointments of professors are, and the safety of the Church 

* One Hundred and Third General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church in the United States of America, Detroit, 
May, 1891. Memorandum of facts and the law controlling 
the relations of Union Theological Seminary in the city of 
New York to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America, by John J. McCook, 
Commissioner from the Presbytery of New York. 



me. Mccook's beief. 61 

demands that they always should be, made by the directors 
conditionally, first upon the approval of the General 
Assembly " (p. 18). 

Again, " Point Till. The only question before this As- 
sembly is the exercise of the power granted to it by Union 
Seminary under the contract, namely : to approve or dis- 
approve the appointment by transfer of Dr. Briggs to the 
new chair of Biblical Theology " (p. 31). 

Mr. McCook opens his brief with a narration of the ma- 
terial facts bearing upon the case. He then makes his 
" Point I," namely : That the memorial of the directors of 
Union Seminary in 1870, and the action of the General 
Assembly thereupon, constituted "a contract upon valid 
considerations." I have already touched upon the question 
of contract and pass it here. The first valid consideration 
was "The benefit to the Union Seminary in securing the 
influence and name of the General Assembly to reassure 
pupils and oenefactors as to its orthodoxy." Imagine 
the looks of wondering incredulity with which William 
Adams, Henry B. Smith, Thomas H. Skinner, Roswell D. 
Hitchcock, Edwin F. Hatfield, and Jonathan F. Stearns — 
not to mention others — would have listened to this as- 
sertion ! I am sure they never heard a lisp of it, either 
before or after 1870. And although for nearly forty years 
connected with Union Seminary either as director or pro- 
fessor, I read it for the first time in this brief. The state- 
ment implies that both pupils and benefactors, being in 
serious doubt respecting the orthodoxy of the institution, 
found relief in the agreement of 1870. What pupils 1 what 
benefactors? and where is the evidence that the Seminary 
entered into the " contract " of 1870 in order to reassure its 
pupils and benefactors as to its own orthodoxy ? The whole 
statement is not only utterly without foundation, but it in- 
volves a very gross and offensive imputation upon the 



62 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

General Assembly, upon Union Seminary, and upon all the 
parties concerned. 

No principle laid down in the Basis of reunion in 1869 
was more emphatically asserted than that of the perfect 
equality of both branches, Old School and New, in the 
matter of their orthodoxy. The whole movement hinged 
upon the distinct recognition of this principle. Had Dr. 
Musgrave, Dr. Beatty, and the other Old School leaders in- 
timated that Union Seminary was not as sound in the faith 
as Princeton, and needed the influence of the General As- 
sembly to " ^assure pupils and benefactors as to its ortho- 
doxy," that of itself would have broken up the negotiations 
for union. 

The second " good and valuable consideration," received 
by the Union Seminary under this " contract," was " a large 
increase of its students, drawn from all parts of the reunited 
Church." This statement also I believe to be entirely 
without foundation. Reunion, according to the best of my 
knowledge and belief, brought very few students to Union 
Seminary; while it undoubtedly tended, in several ways, 
to draw them elsewhere. It wrought a great change, for 
example, in the feeling of New School men toward Old 
School seminaries, as well as toward the Old School 
Church ; and thus led more or less of those studying for 
the ministry to enter these seminaries, who would never 
have thought of doing so before 1870. 

The following table, kindly furnished me by the Be v. 
Charles R. Gillett, librarian of Union Seminary, shows at 
a glance the number of students for twenty years before 
and twenty years since 1870, and will enable the reader to 
judge for himself as to the probable influence of the General 
Assembly upon the increase of its students by "reassur- 
ing pupils and benefactors of the orthodoxy" of the in- 
stitution. This increase, it will be seen, has been from the 



MR. MCCOOK 7 S BRIEF. 



63 



first somewhat irregular. Special causes have from time 
to time depleted the Seminary. The war for the Union 
had this effect in a marked degree. In the four years 1861-5 
not a few Union students, or young men, who were in- 
tending to enter Union Seminary, were at the front, fight- 
ing the battles of their country. Then again special causes 
have occasionally increased the number of students ; as, for 
example, the expectation that the World's Fair would be 
held in New York. I repeat my own opinion, that the 
endorsement of its orthodoxy by the General Assembly, 
during all these twenty years, has never added a dozen names 
to the roll of students in Union Seminary. 



Students in Union Seminary, by years and classes. 
Undergraduates only. 



YEAR. 


SENIORS. 


MLDDLERS. 


JUNIORS. 


TOTALS. 


1890-91 

1889-90 

1888-89 

1887-88 

1886-87 

1885-86 

1884-85 

1883-84 

1882-83 

1881-82 

1880-81 

1879-80 

1878-79 

1877-78 

1876-77 

1875-76 

1874-75 

1873-74 

1872-73 

1871-72 


43 
43 
36 
35 
53 
37 
39 
33 
39 
37 
36 
38 
43 
45 
48 
36 
43 
37 
42 
36 


60 
49 

47 
39 
41 
49 
37 
37 
35 
40 
44 
' 42 
37 
50 
44 
49 
33 
40 
42 
40 


49 
66 
44 
51 
36 
33 
55 
41 
42 
43 
40 
50 
39 
47 
47 
51 
40 
34 
36 
38 


152 

158 
127 
125 
130 
119 
131 
ill 
116 
120 
120 
130 
119 
142 
139 
136 
116 
111 
120 
114 


Averages. 


39.95 


42.75 


44.10 


126.8 



64 



UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 



YEAR. 


SENIORS. 


MIDDLERS. 


JUNIORS. 


TOTALS. 


1870-71 

1869-70 

1868-69 

1867-68 

1866-67 

1865-66 

1864-65 

1863-64 

1862-63 

1861-62 

1860-61 

1859-60 

1858-59 

1857-58 

1856-57 

1855-56 

1854-55 

1853-54 

1852-53 

1851-52 


37 
39 
43 

44 
26 
35 
23 
26 
28 
38 
37 
33 
38 
25 
23 
19 
2G 
27 
22 
23 


36 
37 

44 
42 
51 
38 
39 
27 
30 
32 
56 
49 
39 
40 
33 
31 
32 
31 
24 
21 


37 
37 
40 
47 
31 
50 
38 
32 
28 
39 
40 
59 
43 
43 
46 
40 
38 
40 
34 
30 


110 
113 

127 

133 

108 

123 

100 

85 

86 

109 

133 

141 

120 

108 

102 

90 

96 

98 

80 

74 


Averages. 


30.6 


36.6 


39.6 


106.8 



TEAR. 



1850-51 

1849-50 

1843-49 

1847-48 

1846-47 

1845-46 

1844-45 

1843-44 

1842-43 

1841-42 

1840-41 

1839-40 

1838-39 

Averages. 



20 
31 
27 
30 
40 
25 
29 
22 
25 
32 
23 
24 
28 



27.4 



MIDDLERS. 



28 
20 
32 
37 
32 
45 
30 
40 
29 
31 
43 
41 
26 



JUNIORS. 



25 
41 
32 
36 
43 
30 
46 
31 
44 
39 
33 
55 



33.4 



37.4 



TOTALS. 



73 
92 
91 

103 
115 
100 
105 

93 

98 
102 

99 
120 

86 



98.2 



mr. mccook's bsief. 65 

The third " good and valuable consideration " received 
by Union Seminary under this contract, according to Mr. 
McCook, consists in the financial aid granted each year to 
the students from the Board of Education of the Presby- 
terian Church. How so ? The students of Union Seminary 
had received financial aid every year from the New School 
Committee of Education. After 1870 they received simi- 
lar aid from the Board of Education of the reunited 
Church. Where is the difference? Is a dollar coming by 
way of Philadelphia a better dollar than used to come from 
the treasury of the New School Committee of Education 
right here in New York ? Is there more silver or more 
gold in it? is it stamped with a stronger assurance of 
orthodoxy ? 

The fourth and last " good and valuable consideration," 
binding Union Seminary fast to its contract, consists in 
" large additions to its endowments and funds such as those 
received from James Brown, Esq., Gov. Morgan, and 
others which have been asked for and received since 1870 
upon the guaranty of its orthodoxy through its relation to 
the General Assembly under this contract and the provi- 
sions of its Constitution." 

I observe in passing that the " Constitution," containing 
these important provisions, is here referred to with great 
respect and printed with a big C ; while on page 2 it is 
twice printed with a little c and is spoken of as " the con- 
stitution so-called" And on page 13 the little c comes 
back again four times over. In replying to Mr. Henry 
Day's question, "What authority had the board of 1870 
to bind the board of 1891, and take from them their cor- 
porate and constitutional powers ? " Mr. McCook's brief 
goes on to say : " Such lauguage might be proper if the 
Constitution of the United States were in question, but to 
speak of the corporations constitution as conferring con- 



66 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

stitutional powers is plainly misleading." Why should the 
constitution of Union Seminary, which its founders in- 
tended as the enduring basis and organic law of its existence 
— full of perennial life, growth, and blessing — be called, 
slightingly, " the corporation's constitution " ? 

But to return to the fourth " good and valuable consid- 
eration," namely, " large additions to its endowments and 
funds, such as those received from James Brown, Esq., Gov. 
Morgan, and others upon the guaranty of its orthodoxy." 
Of course, I do not pretend to say that none of the benefac- 
tors of the Seminary were more or less influenced by their 
confidence in the orthodoxy of the institution, as guaran- 
teed by its relations to the General Assembly. I do not 
know. Men are usually led by a variety of motives to 
give away their money, especially when they do it on a 
large scale. Of one of the benefactors named, Gov. Mor- 
gan, I feel entitled to speak with some confidence. Nearly 
forty years ago I preached a sermon to my people on 
the position, character, and claims of Union Theological 
Seminary, urging its immediate endowment. The sermon 
made no allusion to the General Assembly, or to what Mr. 
McCook seems to understand by Presbyterian orthodoxy ; 
but it did set forth what I held, and still hold, to be the 
chief purpose and function of a great metropolitan institu- 
tion of Christian theology and learning, like Union Semi- 
nary. Thirty years later Gov. Morgan was kind enough to 
write to me respecting my sermon : " There is not an ex- 
pression in it which I do not approve. I thank you from 
the bottom of my heart for presenting this vastly important 
subject in its true light." Here follow a few passages 
from the sermon which met his approval : 

The character of Union Seminary is eminently catholic in 
the true sense of the word ; it is at once liberal and conserv- 
ative. There is nothing that I am aware of in its history, 



mr. mccook's brief. 67 

nothing in its associations, nothing in its general policy, noth- 
ing in its temper, which should make this institution cleave 
inordinately to the past or to the future ; which should 
render it unstable in the ways of old truth, or unwilling to 
greet new truth with a friendly welcome ; nothing which 
commits it to any party or prevents its cordial relations with 
all parties that love the Gospel and Christian union. It 
stands in special connection with our own branch of the 
great Presbyterian family ; but it numbers on its board of di- 
rectors, and among its warmest friends, influential members 
of the other branch ; while it seeks its professors and attracts 
its students as readily from the old Puritan body of New 
England, as if its predilections were all Congregational. If 
you will have an institution occupying as catholic a ground as 
the distracted state of the Church in our day seems to per- 
mit, I do not know how you can well come nearer to such a 
plan than have the founders of Union Seminary. Its main 
advantages are as accessible and useful to a Baptist, a 
Methodist, an Episcopalian, or a Congregationalist, as to a 
Presbyterian ; and students of all these and of other de- 
nominations have availed themselves of them. Let it be 
understood that in what I have said, or may say, I cast no 
reflection upon any other seminary. All honor to Princeton, 
and Lane, and Auburn, and Andover, and Bangor, and New 
Haven, and others of whatever name, that are doing the 
Master's work ! 

As the seat, too, of a liberal and profound theological 
culture New York ought to stand foremost in the land. She 
ought for her own sake. There is perhaps no other power, 
after the "Word preached, which would do more to preserve 
her Christian influence, wealth, and enterprise from falling 
a prey to the show, self-aggrandizement, and other vices 
incident to the predominance of a commercial spirit. She 
ought for the sake of our country and the world. Let a 
wise, tolerant, Christian theology flourish here, and it would 
diffuse a beneficent radiance over the land, and even among 



b8 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

pagan nations. The position, then, of the Union Seminary is 
unsurpassed both for the training of ministers and for the 
cultivation of sacred learning. For this reason its founders 
planted it in the city of New York. 

I have the clearest conviction that the Union Seminary is 
capable of doing a great work for Christ and the Church. 
It has already done much. Not a few of the most useful 
ministers in the land, not a few of our best missionaries to the 
heathen, are among its alumni. Already, too, has it made 
invaluable contributions to the higher theological literature 
of the age. But I trust it has still a nobler career in the 
future. I look forward to the time when young men of 
piety and generous endowments shall flock to it in thousands 
from all quarters of the Republic ; from California and Ore- 
gon, and from the islands of the sea, even ; when its library 
shall be the resort of Christian scholars from neighboring 
towns and cities ; when its professorships shall be multiplied 
so as to embrace one for each great branch of sacred lore ; 
when it shall be the pride and glory of our churches and its 
treasury be continually enriched by the princely donations 
of the living and the dying ; when, in a word, it shall be 
such a nursery of men of God and such a citadel of holy 
faith as the voice of Providence commands us to build up in 
this emporium of the New World. 

Gov. Morgan's letter to me closed thus : 

I have always thought, and I still think, that New Yorkers, 
of all others, ought to do something for a good institution, 
like Union Seminary, in their own city and not send all their 
money to Princeton. I am convinced now more than ever 
that my judgment in this respect has not been at fault. 

In his letter to Dr. Adams offering to establish a fund of 
one hundred thousand dollars for the erection of a new 
library building and for the improvement, increase, and 
support of the library, Gov. Morgan begins by saying : " I 



MK. Mccook's beief. 69 

desire to show my appreciation of the usefulness of the 
Union Theological Seminary, and to aid in the great work 
it is now doing for the country" No mention is made of 
Presbyterian orthodoxy as fixed by the a standard of the 
General Assembly." Nor do I believe any such thought 
passed through the mind of this strong man, either at that 
time, or, later, when he added to his first gift two hundred 
thousand dollars more. 

Not long before his death, while busying himself with 
•'Morgan Hall," his generous gift to Williams College, he 
said one day to a friend of mine : " I see now clearly that 
it has been the greatest mistake of my life that I have not 
engaged in this kind of thing before. It is one of the 
greatest pleasures I have ever experienced. And what a 
host of opportunities I have lost ! If men of means could 
only realize what gratification is to be derived in this way, 
worthy and deserving objects would be fairly besieged with 
clamorous donors." 

Mr. McCook, ten pages later, recurs, almost pathetically, 
to the distressing effect that must follow any other position 
than the one maintained by himself : " It would work an 
irreparable wrong upon those donors, such as James Brown, 
Esq., Governor Morgan, Kussell Sage, Esq., Daniel B. 
Fayerweather, Esq., and others, who have contributed so 
largely to the endowment of Union Seminary upon the 
faith of this arrangement with the General Assembly and 
the orthodoxy of the seminary, which was intended to be 
secured thereby." All the benefactors named but one 
have passed far beyond the reach of such " irreparable 
wrong," Kussell Sage, Esq., alone surviving. "Why Mr. 
McCook selects this gentleman in particular from among a 
score or more of five-thousand-dollar contributors to the 
funds of Union Seminary as the special object of his sym- 
pathy, I do not know. But I marvel a little that, in his 



70 UNION seminary and the assembly. 

eagerness to have Dr. Briggs' transfer to the chair of Bib- 
lical Theology vetoed, he shows no touch of sympathy for 
Charles Butler, now in his ninetieth year, the revered 
president, patriarch, and only surviving founder of Union 
Seminary, whose gift of one hundred thousand dollars en- 
dowed the chair, whose services to the institution cannot be 
valued with pure gold, and whose deliberate choice, right 
judgment, and Christian wisdom would be stamped by such 
veto with the stigma of disapproval on the part of the high- 
est judicatory of the Presbyterian Church. 

I have time barely to cull a few more samples of the 
ecclesiastical wisdom, which marks this extraordinarv brief : 

" The sole object of Union Theological Seminary is to 
uphold and teach the Presbyterian standards " (p. 15). 

" Upon questions of orthodoxy the directors, individually 
and as a Presbyterian body, are subject to the General As- 
sembly " (p. 16). 

" The Assembly merely sets a standard of orthodoxy, 
and the corporation, wishing to be orthodox, agree to ap- 
point no agent of a certain class who does not come ujp to 
it" (p. 18). 

" The standard of orthodoxy for the seminary, and for all 
Presbyterians and Presbyterian institutions, must be set by 
the General Assembly. What is more proper, therefore, 
than a contract providing that all appointees to the high 
and responsible office of a professor in such a seminary 
shall be measured by this standard?" (p. 17). 

Surely, if these sayings are true, things are sadly topsy- 
turvy both in Union Seminary and in the Presbyterian 
Church. 

{/). The Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries : 
its report, and the action of the Assembly. 

The one hundred and third General Assembly of the 



REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 71 

Presbyterian Church in the United States of America met 
at Detroit, Michigan, in the Fort street Presbyterian 
Church, of which the Kev. Dr. Wallace Eatcliffe is pastor, 
on May 21, 189 1 . The Eev. Dr. William Henry Green, the 
distinguished professor of Oriental and Old Testament Lit- 
erature at Princeton, was chosen moderator. Dr. Green is 
held in the highest esteem and affection, all over the 
land, as a veteran in the service of Christian scholarship. 
Nothing could have been more fitting than his unanimous 
election. The organization of the Assembly is thus de- 
scribed by the correspondent of the New York Tribune, 
under date of May 22 : 

This is pre-eminently a conservative Assembly ; more, it 
is a Princeton Assembly. The moderator is a Princeton 
man, the senior professor in that seminary ; the stated clerk 
is a Princeton man, having been for a long time librarian of 
that institution ; the chairman of the Standing Committee 
on Theological Seminaries, Dr. Patton, is president of Prince- 
ton College, and it is to this committee that the report of 
Union Seminary is to be submitted. Friends and opponents 
of Dr. Briggs are already forming their opinions as to what 
action this committee will report in regard to the New York 
professor. 

Dr. Green announced the standing committees this morn- 
ing. There is no special significance in the appointments, 
except in that of the Committee on Theological Seminaries 
This is composed as follows : Ministers — Francis L. Patton, 
Princeton ; William McKibbin, Cincinnati ; John Lapsley, 
Danville ; S. Bowden, Eochester ; J. D. Hewitt, Emporia ; 
J. K. Wright, Florida ; T. E. Buber, Philadelphia ; and 
M. A. Bronson, Detroit. Elders— S. M. Breckinridge, St. 
Louis; P. McDavitt, Chicago; E. W. C. Humphrey, Louisville; 
E. C. Totten, Pittsburgh ; P. Doremus, Montclair, N. J. ; M. 
J. Frick, Fort Dodge ; E. McConnaughy, Nebraska City. It 
was said by those professing to know that this was a decid- 



72 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

edly anti-Briggs committee, but Dr. Patton, its chairman, 
assured the Tribune correspondent that he did not know how 
the members stood on any special question that might come be- 
fore them. They had apparently been chosen by Dr. Green 
because he knew their fitness for the work before them. 

What ground there was, if any, for the charge, made at 
Detroit, that the moderator allowed himself to be unduly 
influenced in order to make the Standing Committee on 
Theological Seminaries a decidedly " anti-Briggs " commit- 
tee, I know not. Of the Standing Committee on Theolog- 
ical Seminaries, I shall refer chiefly to the chairman. Had 
Dr. Patton, in view of the peculiarly delicate circumstances 
of the case, peremptorily declined the appointment, or, at 
the least, had he followed the example of Dr. Adams at 
Philadelphia in 1870, and requested the Assembly, as a 
personal favor, to excuse him from serving, he would have 
stood higher than he does to-day in the respect of the 
friends of Union Seminary, and, I cannot but think, in that 
also of the Christian scholarship of the country. 

On May 27th Dr. Patton read the report of the commit- 
tee, which was accepted and ordered to be printed. The 
report opened with an enumeration of sixty-three Presby- 
teries which had overtured the General Assembly respect- 
ing the recent utterances of Dr. Briggs. It also refers to 
the report of the directors of the Union Theological Semi- 
nary to the General Assembly respecting the transfer of 
Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology. The report 
then proceeds thus : 

On the 20th of January, 1891, Dr. Briggs delivered an in- 
augural address on the authority of the Holy Scriptures 
which has been the subject of some criticism, and which is 
the occasion of the recommendations which your committee 
feel constrained to make to the Assembly. In making these 
recommendations, your committee feel that they are acting 



REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 73 

in the discharge of a delicate duty. The matter with which 
they have been called to deal bears in a very important way 
upon the purity and peace of our Church. The interest of 
the Union Theological Seminary should be most carefully 
considered, and great respect should be had for the judgment 
of those who, as directors and as members of its faculty, are 
administering its affairs. The committee feel, moreover, that 
while the Assembly has not been officially informed, the 
Presbytery of New York has taken steps that look toward a 
prosecution of Dr. Briggs on the charge of heresy ; that 
well-known facts should be so far recognized as to secure 
from the Assembly the protection of the good name of Dr. 
Briggs in the discussion of the question that will come be- 
fore the Assembly, through this report, and also to prevent 
any expression of opinion on the part of this Assembly that 
could be justly regarded as prejudgment of the case that will 
soon, as it now appears, assume the form of a judicial pro- 
cess in the Presbytery of New York. It cannot be too care- 
fully observed that the question before this Assembly is not 
whether Dr. Briggs, as a Presbyterian minister, has so far 
contravened the teaching of the Westminster Confession of 
Faith as to have made himself liable to a judicial censure, but 
whether, in view of the utterances contained in the inaugural 
address, already referred to, and the disturbing effect which 
they have produced throughout the Church, the election of 
Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology in Union Theo- 
logical Seminary should be disapproved. Your committee 
have examined the law of the Church regarding the relation 
of the General Assembly to the theological seminaries under 
its care. The relation of the Assembly to the Union Theo- 
logical Seminary, so far as the appointment of professors is 
concerned, is embodied in the following statement taken from 
page 390 of the New Digest. 

Having cited the statement referred to, the report con- 
tinues, as follows : 



74 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

It appears, then, that, according to the items of the com- 
pact quoted above, the directors of the Union Theological 
Seminary have conceded to the Assembly the right to veto 
the appointment of professors, and that an election is com- 
plete unless vetoed by the next Assembly following the elec- 
tion. Your committee would have been disposed to recom- 
mend that the report of the directors of Union Theological 
Seminary to this Assembly, so far as it referred to the trans- 
fer of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology, be re- 
ferred to the next Assembly, if such a disposition of the matter 
had been possible ; but the Assembly has clearly no power 
to postpone action. The control of the Church over the 
election of Dr. Briggs ceases with the dissolution of this 
present Assembly. Your committee are constrained, there- 
fore, to say that in their judgment it is the duty of the As- 
sembly to disapprove of the appointment of Dr. Briggs to 
the Edward Robinson chair of Biblical Theology in Union 
Theological Seminary. 

Your committee desire to say, moreover, that while they 
are clear in their judgment that the Assembly has the right 
to veto the appointment of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical 
Theology, it is possible to impose a meaning upon the ap- 
parently unambiguous phraseology of the compact between 
the General Assembly and the directors of the Union Theo- 
logical Seminary, that would lead to a different conclusion. 
Fairness also requires us to say that the Assembly is one of 
the parties of the compact that it is called upon to construe. 
While your committee are of the opinion that the compact 
in question did not contemplate the distinction between the 
election of a person to be a professor and the appointment 
of one already a professor to the work of a certain depart- 
ment of instruction, it cannot be denied that such a distinc- 
tion exists ; the one act conferring status, the other only as- 
signing duties. The seemingly irregular course of the 
directors of the Union Theological Seminary, whereby Dr. 
Briggs was inducted into ofici before the Assembly had 



EEPOET OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINAEIES. 75 

been advised of his appointment, is doubtless to be attributed 
to their mode of construing their contract with the General 
Assembly. While your committee are sure that the Assem- 
bly will not, and should not, admit its right of disapproval is 
restricted to the original election of a person to a professor- 
ship of Biblical Theology in that Seminary, and while they 
are of the opinion that, acting according to the light it now 
has, the Assembly cannot but disapprove of the appointment 
of Dr. Briggs to the professorship of Biblical Theology in 
that Seminary, they are nevertheless of the opinion that, in 
the interests of the mutual relations of confidence and cordial 
respect subsisting between the Union Theological Seminary 
and the General Assembly, it would be eminently proper for 
the Assembly to appoint a committee to confer with the 
directors of the Union Theological Seminary in regard to 
the relations of said Seminary to the General Assembly, and 
to report to the next General Assembly. The committee, 
therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolu- 
tions : 

I. Resolved, That in the exercise of its right to veto the ap- 
pointment of professors in Union Theological Seminary, the 
General Assembly hereby disapproves of the appointment of 
the Kev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., to the Edward Robinson pro- 
fessorship of Biblical Theology in that Seminary, by transfer 
from another chair in said Seminary. 

II. Resolved, That a committee, consisting of eight ministers 
and seven ruling elders, be appointed by the General Assembly 
to confer with the directors of Union Theological Seminary in 
regard to the relations of said Seminary to the General As- 
sembly, and to report to the next General Assembly. 

Before considering the report of the committee I wish to 
call attention to the statement of the chairman on reading 
it. 

I would like to say that this committee have felt the re- 
sponsibility that has been placed upon them ; that they have 



76 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

not felt at liberty to divide this responsibility with any one ; 
that they have studiously avoided consulting with any one 
who may have been supposed to have preconceived opinions 
on either side of the question ; and having reached our con- 
clusions, we present them to the Assembly for such action as 
the Assembly in its wisdom may see fit to take. 

Is this not equivalent to saying that they deliberately 
refused to seek, or to receive, any light from anybody in 
reference to the momentous question which they were ap- 
pointed to consider ? If so, it is a confession that, in my 
opinion, reflects anything but credit upon the committee. 
Were these fifteen commissioners already omniscient when 
they shut themselves up in committee ? Would their minds 
henceforth of necessity be biased, or misled, by any addition 
to their knowledge touching the Union Seminary and Dr. 
Briggs \ I say nothing about the other " side "; but so far as the 
Union Seminary was concerned, it had good right to be heard 
before that committee, if it desired or cared to do so. Three 
of its directors were commissioners to the Assembly, Drs. 
Parkhurst, Dickey, and White. Of Dr. Parkhurst I can- 
not speak. Dr. Dickey has repeatedly stated that he offered, 
as a member of the Union board of directors, to give the 
committee any information in his power; not "precon- 
ceived opinions," but simple information. Dr. White made 
the same offer, both orally and in writing, and he was as- 
sured by Dr. Patton that the committee would be glad to 
hear him. He fully expected to be heard ; but neither 
he nor Dr. Dickey were ever sent for or asked to appear. 
The committee " studiously avoided " consulting with him. 

And, pray, who is Erskine N. White, that he should be 
treated in that manner ? He is, as his honored father was 
before him, one of the most candid, judicious, and clear- 
sighted, as he is also one of the best, men in the 
Presbyterian Church. He was sent to the Assembly 



REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 77 

because the whole Presbytery of New York knew him 
to be such a man. He insisted upon declining the 
appointment, moved thereto in part no doubt by reason 
of his exacting duties as secretary of the Assembly's 
Board of Church Erection, and partly, it may be, by reason 
of the somewhat delicate position in which the case of Dr. 
Briggs might place him, should he take part in its discus- 
sion. Hearing of his purpose, I joined Dr. Hastings in urg- 
ing him not to decline. " You need take no part in the dis- 
cussion of Dr. Briggs' case," we said to him, " but you know 
all about our Seminary affairs. You know the mind and 
temper of the board ; you have the confidence of the whole 
Church. You can explain things; you can give needed 
information. Go, by all means." He yielded, and when he 
got to Detroit found his information " studiously avoided." 
Was it because, forsooth, he " might be supposed to have 
preconceived opinions " % Surely, this is not the spirit of 
fairness that ought to rule a leading committee of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, when dealing 
with a question that involves the professional standing and 
character of one of her most distinguished ministers ! 

But this slight put upon the three directors of Union 
Seminary, who were commissioners to the Assembly, 
was only a prelude to a far greater slight put upon the 
Seminary itself. Had Union Seminary belonged to the 
General Assembly and been subject to its authority as 
Princeton, for example, was and is, such treatment would 
still have been open to criticism. But Union Seminary, as 
we have seen, is not subject to the authority of the General 
Assembly. That body is in no sense its patron or the foun- 
tain of any of its powers. It stands, and has always stood, 
upon its own independent foundation. The single tie which 
in 1870 by its own free act connected it with the General 
Assembly, by its own free act it can sever at any moment 



78 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

" for good and sufficient reasons." It is true that the report 
of the committee distinctly recognizes the fact that Union 
Seminary was a party in the case and had rights of its 
own as over against the Assembly. And yet the report 
recommended an ex parte decision of the vital question at 
issue without consulting in the least Union Seminary. The 
consultation was to come after the matter had been practi- 
cally, and so far as that Assembly was concerned, irrevoca- 
bly settled. 

The exposition of the case in the report, more fully given 
in Dr. Patton's speeches and in those of other members of 
the committee, is remarkable for the manner in which it 
utterly ignores the deliberate action and testimony of the 
board of directors of Union Seminary, as also the carefully 
prepared statement of its Faculty. These were not, it is 
true, officially made known to the Assembly. But neither 
was the action of the Presbytery of New York, looking to 
a judicial process in the case of Dr. Briggs ; and yet the 
Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries kept that 
action constantly in mind in framing their report, and urged 
the Assembly to do so in considering it. Why was not the 
Assembly informed in this report of the exact position taken 
both by the Board of directors and by the Faculty of the 
Seminary ? Why was not the Assembly distinctly told that 
the Board, by a unanimous vote and after careful investiga- 
tion, had virtually pronounced the charges against Dr. 
Briggs unfounded, and that the Faculty of the institution 
had done the same thing? Was this solemn testimony 
also " studiously avoided " on the ground that it consisted 
of " preconceived opinions " % * 

* The action of the Board in establishing the new chair 
and transferring Dr. Briggs to it, Dr. Frazer's charge, the 
resolutions of the Board of directors sustaining and promis- 



REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 79 

As to the second recommendation of the committee, Dr. 
Erskine pointed out its real character in his very sensible 
comment upon it. Here is what he said : 

It is proposed that we appoint a committee and go and 
hold a conference with the Union Seminary directors in re- 
gard to Dr. Briggs' relation to that Seminary, and to give 
them some advice. Mr. Moderator, what authority have we 
for that ? Where have we any authority in regard to Union 
Seminary, excepting that which is embraced in the compact 
between that Seminary and us in the articles of agreement 
which were adopted in the year 1870 in the General Assem- 
bly at Philadelphia ? And where have we any authority to 
go to them and advise with them, to do anything outside of 
the compact? None whatever. This proposition is a mis- 
leading proposition. It would have us surrender the only 
authority we have in regard to the instructions which are 
given to our candidates for the ministry in Union Seminary, 
and to assume an authority that does not belong to us. If 
we do so, we just allow ourselves to be misled and outwitted. 
The only control as an Assembly that we have over the 
theological seminary — I mean directly, except through the 
Synod and the Presbytery where we may reach ministers and 
elders — is embraced in that compact which has been entered 
into between the General Assembly and our theological semi- 
naries, and the power that we have is the power of disap- 
proval in regard to a professor that has been elected ; and if 
you surrender that power, you surrender all the controlling 
power that you have in regard to the instructions that are 
given in these seminaries. Suppose you adopt this substi- 
tute ; suppose you appoint your most prominent, most influ- 
ential and wisest representatives. You go there and make 
your propositions. Why, they will receive you very cordially 

ing to stand by Dr. Briggs, and also the statement of the 
Faculty, will all be found in the Appendix. 



80 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

and politely, and say : " Gentlemen, we will take this into 
consideration ; we will take time to consider this. We are 
obliged to you ; we shall treat it with great respect and great 
courtesy." And they will take it into consideration, and what 
will be the result ? You can all anticipate it. The majority 
of the directors in that theological seminary have sat upon 
this question again and again. There is a minority in that 
board with whom you might deal if you had the power, and 
they had the power ; but the majority of that board of direct- 
ors have acted upon this, and they have expressed their ap- 
proval and their confidence in the views held by the person 
in question. And so if we were to go into this arrangement 
it would be vetoing the great issue. It would be surrender- 
ing the power that we have, and it would be putting you in 
a position just to be treated with simple courtesy by that 
board. You have no authority over them, and I don't know 
that they have any authority to carry out the proposition 
that is made. 

Dr. Erskine was heard by the Assembly with not a little 
impatience, but this part of his speech, at least, seems to 
me to show that he understood the subject far better than 
some of his more eloquent brethren. His common-sense 
view of the relations of the Assembly to the directors of 
the Union Seminary may very well be compared with that 
expressed, or implied, by Dr. Patton, for example, in the 
following passages : 

We have recognized that as a judge we are bound to con- 
strue, and we have recognized that as a party Union Semi- 
nary claim that their rights have been infringed by our con- 
struction, and if they see fit they can take us into the civil 
courts for a judicial and authoritative interpretation of this 

compact Now we understand that you intend to take 

us into the courts. Well, brethren, is that the best course to 
pursue ? Can't we talk the matter over ? It is possible, you 
know, that you may be wrong. Is it not possible, therefore, 



REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 81 

that they may come around? You might elect a man as 
professor of Elocution, and then transfer him to the chair of 
Theology. Isn't it possible that the directors will feel that 
the Assembly was right, after all ? Why, certainly. On the 
other hand, isn't it possible that your committee would 
change their view, and that they would recommend the next 
Assembly to reverse the judgment of this Assembly ? Isn't 
that possible ? Why, of course it is possible ; all things are 
possible. [Laughter and applause.] That would be a rep- 
resentative committee — eight ministers and seven elders, 
composed of the best men, the wisest lawyers, and to such a 
committee would we intrust this duty. Isn't it possible that 
both parties, in their inability to change their views, may 
say : " Well, we do not want to go to the courts. We re- 
member what Paul said about prosecuting these matters 
before the heathen court." But cannot the General Assem- 
bly on the report of this committee and the board of direct- 
ors of Union Seminary agree to refer the constitutional in- 
terpretation of this old compact, which is liable to come up 
and be a source of disturbance in years to come — refer it, 
not to this committee, not to the board of directors of Union 
Seminary, but to some Christian men outside, known for 
their wisdom, praised for their fairness, and saying on our 
part as a General Assembly, while they say on their part as 
a board of directors, " Dear brethren, we are perfectly will- 
ing to let any fair-minded set of men arbitrate this ques- 
tion " ? These are the possibilities in the case.* 

The debate upon the report opened on May 28th, and on 
May 29th, late in the afternoon, the vote was taken. It re- 
sulted in the adoption of the resolutions of the committee 

* These quotations, as all others, from the speeches, made 
in the Assembly, are taken from the revised reports of the 
N. Y. Tribune, printed in pamphlet form under the title, 
The Presbyterian Faith. 



82 UNION SEMINABY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

by the overwhelming majority of 447 to 60. On the after- 
noon of May 28th Judge Breckinridge, a commissioner from 
St. Louis, at the moment of closing a speech in favor of 
the report, dropped dead in the presence of the whole As- 
sembly. This startling incident, following so quickly upon 
the almost equally sudden death of the Rev. Henry J. Yan 
Dyke, D.D., professor-elect to the chair of Systematic The- 
ology in Union Seminary — a noble man and one of the 
foremost leaders in the Presbyterian Church — tended nat- 
urally to deepen the serious f eeling which already pervaded 
the Assembly. While a few appear to have been in a 
different mood, the great body of commissioners, both 
ministers and elders, were very much impressed with the 
gravity of the situation. 

It is not needful for my purpose to dwell long upon the 
speeches that were made. Much of the discussion, however 
able, was yet quite irrelevant. Much of it consisted in 
what is called beating about the bush. The first and fun- 
damental point, namely, the question of jurisdiction, was 
hardly touched upon except in the report of the commit- 
tee. With regard to this question, the minority were 
handicapped and tongue-tied from the outset. Their case 
was simply given away, and, strangely enough, by a director 
of Union Theological Seminary.* 

* " The technical distinction, if any exists, between the ap- 
pointment of a professor to a newly-founded chair and a 
transfer from one chair to another, need not be discussed, as it 
is stated by Dr. Dickey that the directors of Union Semi- 
nary, at their last meeting in May, unanimously voted not to 
plead this distinction." — Eemarks by John J. McCook, p. 9. 
How Dr. Dickey's memory or hearing came to be so at fault, 
I am not able to say. His course at Detroit was in a high 
degree frank and manly, and all his friends know him to be 
incapable of stating what he did not believe to be true. The 



EEPOET OF THE COMMITTEE OJS" SEMINARIES. 83 

After this the friends of Dr. Briggs had nothing to do 
but to oppose the adoption of the report as best they could ; 
either directly, or by urging Dr. Logan's amendment or 
Dr. Worcester's substitute, both of which contemplated the 
postponement of final action to the next Assembly. The 
distinction between an original election and a transfer, 
however, having been waived, the advocates of a veto had 
it all their own way. And their own way consisted in two 
things : first, to assert very positively that Dr. Briggs ought 
to be vetoed ; and second, that he must be vetoed now or 
never. The latter point was urged with great solemnity 
and most impressive reiteration. "We are under obliga- 
tion," said Mr. McCook, " as honest men, as Christian men, 
to carry out in its exact terms all the provisions of that 
compact, and we cannot, we dare not, postpone action. 
We must act now and before the adjournment of this As- 
sembly, or the right to disapprove is lost fokever." Dr. 
Patton was equally emphatic as to the "now or never," 
giving as a reason how he should feel if threatened with a 
veto in the indefinite future. Here is what he said': 

The question is whether we have the right to veto. I think 
we have Very well, suppose we have that right, how 

following note is from Mr. E. M. Kingsley, the recorder of 
Union Seminary : 

The Rev. Dr. Dickey's memory was at fault concerning the action 
of the directors at their meeting of May 12th. At that meeting the 
Executive Committee presented a report which in substance deemed 
it unwise to assume in advance that the General Assembly would mis- 
conceive the extent of its prerogative ; and in any event it was better 
at this time not to raise an issue by the sending up of a resolution 
upon the distinction between an "appointment" and a "transfer." 
This report, after discussion, was laid on the table, giving way to a 
motion which led to the series of questions submitted to and answered 
by Professor Briggs. 



84 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

long does that right last ? One General Assembly has said that 
it can last only during the Assembly immediately following the 
election of the professor. Yery well, I think that is a good rule. 
It may seem a singular thing for me to play the role of an ad- 
vocate of freedom [laughter], but I am. I am a professor. 
I have the prejudices of my class, and I tell you that, in the 
name of that class, I will protest against the right of an 
Assembly to hold the threat of a veto over me for a dozen 
years in succession. They have their chance once, and if they 
don't veto my appointment then, they ought not to have the 
chance four or five years hence. Suppose you admit that 
you can postpone this veto. By and by some other professor 
will be saying something that is not right, as we think, and 
we shall say, " Let us go and veto him. "We did not veto 
him then, but we will do it now." "Who is safe ? I tell you it 
is in the interest of freedom ; it is in the interest of a proper 
freedom that you should not allow that it is possible to post- 
pone the veto. You have to do it now, or not at all. Very 
well. Now, then, you have the right to veto, and if you veto, 
you must veto now. 

A veto, after all, is a terrible thing to be threatened with ! 
It seems to have made the chairman of the Standing Com- 
mittee on Theological Seminaries himself squirm to think of 
being the possible subject of it. Theological freedom, too, 
may be at stake ; and theological freedom, the proper liberty 
of a Christian scholar and teacher, in the last decade of the 
nineteenth century, is a very serious matter. If it must be 
done, let it be done quickly and put the man out of his 
misery. Precisely so ; but who would have guessed it from 
other parts of this speech ? 

But even admitting, for the moment, that the Assembly 
had a right to veto Dr. Briggs' transfer, is it true that Now 
or Never was the absolute condition of its exercise ? Noth- 
ing could be further from the truth. The rule adopted by 
the Assembly, that the veto power must be used, if at all, 



REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 85 

by the Assembly to which the election is reported, formed 
no part of the agreement of 1870, but was suggested by 
Auburn a year later. Had Auburn and Lane been consulted, 
as they should have been, and no doubt would have been 
but for the manner in which Union was hurried up by 
pressure from Princeton, such a rule would probably have 
been agreed upon by all the three New School institutions, 
acting in concert. Although a very sensible rule, it was 
yet in the nature of a mere by-law, belonging to the admin- 
istrative functions of the Assembly, and in such an exigency 
might have been suspended without the slightest impro- 
priety. But the leaders of the Assembly — not to speak 
with any disrespect — seem to have had " compact," as well 
as the veto of Dr. Briggs, " on the brain," as the phrase is, 
and so a simple rule of fairness and prudence, with which, 
however, Union Seminary had nothing to do, took on, in 
their reasoning, the color and rigidity of a law of the Medes 
and Persians which changeth not! A good deal in the 
whole matter impels one to say with Faust, 

— der casus macht mich lachen, 

but nothing, I think, like this Now or Never plea. 

The Assembly then, it is plain, was fatally misled by the 
Now or Never plea. That plea was based upon a sheer 
mistake. But it served its purpose quite as well as if it had 
been based upon an opinion of Chief -Justice Marshall, or up- 
on the latest decision of the United States Supreme Court. It 
deluded the Assembly into just the right state of mind for 
the stern work in hand — vetoing Dr. Briggs. See how skil- 
fully Dr. Patton put the case : 

We are here ; the presbyteries have sent us here, and the 
report of the Union Theological Seminary has brought this 
question right up to the bar of every man's conscience, and 



86 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

you cannot avoid it, and you dare not avoid it. I do not use 
the word " dare " in an unkind sense at all, I simply use it in 
the moral sense. There we are. Now for us not to express 
technical disapproval is for us to express technical approval. 
And it is not a matter of reflection upon Union Seminary, or 
a matter of sentiment or regard for their feelings, or a matter 
of how much disturbance this is going to occasion the Church, 
but it is a question as to the discharge of a solemn duty at 
the bar of your conscience and of mine, here and now. Then 
I think that every man of us will agree that the question is 
here. It is here. We must say, seeing that we have a right 
to veto, and seeing that we can never veto, if we do not do it 
now, we must say whether or no there is occasion for the veto. 
Now is there an occasion for veto ? 

Could he have got his hearers just where he wanted them 
more adroitly ? They were in exactly the " solemnized " 
mood and posture of thought to hear most attentively his 
answer to the question, " Now is there occasion to veto % " 
No wonder, as the Detroit reporter said, they listened 
" spell-bound." This solemn, reiterated plea, " Now or 
Never," coupled with the " compact " plea, carried all be- 
fore it. The only wonder is how sixty commissioners kept 
cool enough to vote against vetoing Dr. Briggs. I am 
really afraid I myself should have vetoed Dr. Briggs, had I 
been a commissioner. As to the skilful way in which the 
" compact " plea was handled, who can fail to admire it ? 
The chairman of the Committee on Theological Seminaries 
took "the compact" under his special care and guardian- 
ship. He was very jealous of the slightest interference 
with it, even by so honored and learned an ecclesiastic as 
Dr. Moore. Hear him : 

If we are going to veto under the terms of the compact, 
we must veto in the terms of the compact. 

Dr. Moore (the Permanent Clerk) : " Excuse me, Doctor, a 



EEPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINAKIES. 87 

moment. I want to call attention to the fact that while the 
first of that is the compact, the second is simply the decision 
of the General Assembly." 

Dr. Patton: " That is not relevant to my remarks And 

so I go back to my statement, in spite of the instruction that 
I have received, and I say that if you intend to veto under the 
terms of the compact, you must veto in the terms of the com- 
pact. Now, what are the terms of the compact ? . . . . Now, 
when you talk of disapproving 'for the present' you de- 
part from your compact, and you have simply expressed 
your oral dislike and put the stigma of your moral disap- 
proval upon the case, but you have done nothing." 

I tried to count up the number of times in which " com- 
pact " occurs in Dr. Patton's speech, but my memory failed 
me. How extremely interested, not to say entertained, 
William Adams, George W. Musgrave, Henry B. Smith, 
Jonathan F. Stearns, and Edwin F. Hatfield would have 
been in listening to this exposition of " the compact of 
1870," by so adroit an ecclesiastic as the President of 
Princeton College ! 

The most striking point in the chairman's discussion of 
the question, whether there was occasion for veto, is " kind- 
ness " to Dr. Briggs. It is " kindness " to Dr. Briggs that 
forced him to turn a deaf ear to all entreaties for " reasons." 
" Well, but," it is said, " couldn't you state some reasons 
without involving the question of heresy ? " " Yes," I said, 
" I could." " Well," said some one, " you have been work- 
ing in theology ; couldn't you draft such a report ? " 
" Yes," I said, u I might." But " kindness " to Dr. Briggs 
forbade it. Here are some passages about Dr. Briggs : 

When your feelings cool down, brethren, you will see that 
this is a much kinder thing than you think, and it is not so 

cold, either ; we made it cold, but it is not so cold So 

far as Dr. Briggs is concerned, I will yield to none of his 



b« UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

friends, not even the best, in my recognition of his learning, 
in my admiration of his industry, in my conviction concern- 
ing his piety. He is my friend. It is my privilege to call 
him so. I venture to hope that in spite of my relations to 
this debate he will not be unwilling to reciprocate my ex- 
pression of the relationship between us I vish to say 

that we have done this in the interest of kindness to Dr. 
Briggs. I would be unwilling for the Assembly to pass a 
resolution, in the full body of which there should be the 
stigma of a constitutional kind, that would affirm that Dr. 
Briggs' idiosyncrasies are such that he should not be a pro- 
fessor in a seminary. Why, a man's idiosyncrasies go with 
him through life, and I don't know but they go into the 
middle state, [laughter] and I am not willing to say that Dr. 
Briggs is not fit to be a professor in any seminary. I am 
not willing to say that he is not fit to be a professor in Union 

Seminary. Not at all I said, " Brethren, it is not kind, 

it is not right for the Assembly, in its explicit utterance on 
the adoption of a report, to say a word that can be construed, 
even remotely, to the detriment of Dr. Briggs." That is why 
we did not give reasons, but it was not because we had no 
reasons. "We had reasons. 

Dr. Patton and his committee, then, had reasons. The 
reasons appear to have been as plentiful as blackberries. 
But nobody was the wiser for them. Nobody is the wiser 
for them to this day. Every now and then at Detroit they 
seemed, to be sure, on the very point of leaking out, both 
in the speeches of the chairman and in those of several 
members of his committee. In other speeches they not 
only leaked out, they came gushing out, explicit, frank, and 
unmistakable. I said that a good deal of the discussion at 
Detroit consisted in beating about the bush. In this the 
chairman surpassed all his brethren. The the logical agility 
and deftness with which he beat, and beat about, this par- 



REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES, 89 

ticular bush of "no reasons " was something remarkable. 
He keeps saying, as it were : 

Fain would I, but I dare not ; I dare, and yet I may not. 
It appears, then, that while the Standing Committee on 
Theological Seminaries had plenty of reasons — good, valid 
reasons, as they believed — for recommending the veto of 
Dr. Briggs' transfer, they purposely concealed these reasons, 
alike from the Assembly and from the Christian public. 
Nobody, I repeat, knew then, or knows to this day, unless 
privately informed by some member of the committee, 
what was the ground of the decision for which they are 
responsible to Christian scholarship, to history, and to God. 
They themselves acted> as they said, in the light of their 
own reason and conscience. They left the Assembly to act 
in the dark and adopt their decision on trust. If the 
President of the United States disapprove a bill passed by 
Congress, he is required to return the bill with his objec- 
tions. If the Governor of New York disapprove of a bill 
passed by the Legislature, he sends it back with his reasons 
for vetoing it. And this is according to the true genius of 
republican liberty. Our American idea of free government 
abhors arbitrary, reasonless exercise of power. If the agree- 
ment of 1870 had given the General Assembly "the right 
of peremptory veto," as proposed in the letter of Dr. A. A. 
Hodge to Henry B. Smith, then, indeed, the recommenda- 
tion of Dr. Patton's committee would have been in order. 
A peremptory veto is a veto that requires no explanation. 
It is like an edict of the Sultan — an arbitrary act, pure 
and simple. The American Presbyterianism, in which 
Union Seminary was born and nurtured, is not fond of 
such acts. It likes to give a good reason for what it does, 
as well as for what it believes. The power of intelligible, 
rational, Christian disapproval, not & peremptory veto, was 
the power conceded by Union Seminary in 1870. 



90 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

Before passing from this topic I desire to add a word 
respecting the course of the chairman of the Standing 
Committee on Theological Seminaries. When I wrote the 
article in The Evangelist of May 21st on the veto power, I 
purposely restrained myself, and carefully omitted to say 
what would be, in my judgment, the inevitable effects of a 
veto of Dr. Briggs' transfer. In this perhaps I erred ; if 
so, it was in the interest of the peace of the Church. The 
crisis seemed to me serious enough to demand the utmost 
caution, not to say reticence, on the part of every friend of 
Union Seminary. Having expressed the opinion that the 
question about the veto power touched in principle all the 
other theological seminaries in the Presbyterian Church, I 
closed my article as follows : 

The General Assembly is shortly to convene and show its 
judgment upon the matter. Nor, for myself, have I any fear 
of the result. Many of the ablest, wisest, and best men in 
the Presbyterian Church, both of the ministry and eldership, 
will sit in that Assembly, and they will not be likely to coun- 
tenance any hasty or unjust action. 

This was my honest feeling and expectation. "When, 
therefore, the result came my disappointment was all the 
keener, especially with regard to Dr. Patton. Although 
my acquaintance with him was slight, I had for many years 
admired his varied gifts and his remarkable power of sway- 
ing a popular assembly. His oft-expressed reverence for 
the character and memory of my bosom friend, Henry B. 
Smith, touched me in a very tender spot ; and I had heard 
things related of him, privately, which won my sincere 
esteem. There are few men in the Presbyterian Church, 
perhaps there is not another one, of whom I could have 
honestly said just what in my letter to Dr. Field, in The 
Evangelist of June 11, 1 wrote of Dr. Patton. And what 



UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 91 

is there written of him expresses so truly my feeling still, 
that I can only repeat it here : 

He had an opportunity to speak a word and strike a blow 
for justice, for sacred scholarship, for reasonable liberty, 
both of thought and teaching, for the suppression of clamor 
as an ecclesiastical and theological force, and for the highest 
interests of Christian truth, which, like the shot fired by 
the " embattled farmers " at Lexington, would have been 
"heard round the world." Acting, I do not question, from 
a strong sense of duty to the Presbyterian Church, he failed 
to seize it ; and he will be a fortunate man indeed, if Provi- 
dence ever again entrusts to him such an opportunity. 

(g). Union Theological Seminary in its relations to 
Princeton. 

I have been connected with Union Seminary, either as 
director or professor, for about forty years, and during all 
that time my relations with Princeton have been of the 
friendliest character. Eever have I failed to recognize the 
invaluable services rendered by her scholars and divines to 
the cause of Biblical learning and of sacred science in this 
country. Though trained in other schools of thought and 
of theological opinion, I have always found much to admire 
in her sturdy orthodoxy, in her fidelity to the teachings of 
the Westminster standards on the great questions of the 
church and the sacraments, in her homage to the authority 
of the inspired oracles, and in the fervor of her piety. The 
name of her " Old Dr. Alexander " was as familiar, and 
almost as dear, to my boyhood as the name of " Dr. Pay- 
son," or that of any other minister of Christ in New Eng- 
land. I might mention other names on her roll of saints 
of earlier and of later days, for whom I cherished, and still 
cherish, sentiments of unfeigned respect and affection. 
Who could have even a casual acquaintance with Dr. 



92 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

Charles Hodge without beginning at once to love and 
revere him ? And I say frankly that in his theology, as in 
that of Dr. Alexander, there was not a little that I pre- 
ferred to not a little of the theology dominant in New 
England while I was a pastor there, or in the New School 
Presbyterian Church when I first came into it. But there 
were also certain features of Princeton theology and of 
the Old School ecclesiastical temper, which never attracted 
me in the least ; some, indeed, which strongly repelled me. 
I used to think that Princeton was altogether too inclined 
to fancy that her theology was, and of right ought to be, 
the only authorized theology in the Presbyterian Church. 
Nor did reunion seem to me to cure her wholly of this 
fond notion. 

I have ventured to speak of my personal relations to 
Princeton. So far as is known to me, the relations of 
Union Seminary to Princeton have been of the same 
friendly character ; only in the case of one of her oldest 
directors and professors, the saintly Skinner, much more 
intimate. Dr. Skinner was a typical New School theo- 
logian, enthusiastic and whole-souled in his devotion to the 
New England and Puritan, in distinction from the Scottish, 
Scotch-Irish, and Swiss divinity. He held the writings of 
Baxter, Howe, Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and Albert 
Barnes in much greater esteem than the writings of Tur- 
retin and his school, whether in Scotland or America. 
And he bore upon his person the scars of many a sharp 
encounter in defense of his opinions, while preaching and 
fighting for his Master amidst the powerful foes who, in 
the second and third decades of the century, represented 
conservative Presbyterian orthodoxy at Philadelphia. But 
for all that, a very warm friendship existed between Dr. 
Skinner and Dr. Charles Hodge. They loved each other 
with the generous fervor of Christian brotherhood, an^ 



UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 93 

when, in 1871, Dr. Skinner passed suddenly into the glory 
of that risen Redeemer whom he so adored, Dr. Itodge 
wrote thus to the Faculty of Union Seminary : 

When your beloved and revered colleague, Dr. Thomas H. 
Skinner, was called away, I was ill in bed. I was not in- 
formed of his death for more than a week after its occurrence. 
I wish these facts to be known, because no person was under 
stronger obligation to stand at the grave of Thomas H. Skin- 
ner than myself ; and few had better right to appear there 
as a mourner. For more than fifty-five years I knew, loved, 
and honored, and was loved and trusted by him. Of this 
he assured me, and no man ever doubted his sincerity. 

You must excuse the personal character of this communi- 
cation. I cannot forbear entering my claim to be counted 
among the oldest and most devoted of his friends. He was 
a man by himself. The union of high gifts with the most 
transparent, childlike simplicity of character gave him a 
peculiar position in the love and admiration of his friends. 

Dr. Henry White studied theology at Princeton ; but of 
his relations to that seminary in his later years I cannot 
speak. JNor do I know what were those of Edward Rob- 
inson, the great Biblical scholar. 

Henry B. Smith had no early association with Princeton. 
As late as 1850, when he came to New York, the embit- 
tered feelings of 1837-8 were still rankling. Ecclesias- 
tically and theologically, one might almost say, as it is 
written concerning the Jews and the Samaritans, Old School 
and New School " had no dealings with each other." I 
speak of my own recollections and experience. For years 
after I became pastor of the Mercer-street Presbyterian 
Church, the Old School ministers of New York — and such 
men as Spring, Potts, James W. Alexander, and Krebs 
were among them — neither called upon me nor I upon 
them. We never exchanged pulpits. We had no social 



94 UNION SEMINAKY AKD THE ASSEMBLY. 

intercourse, except incidentally. I cared nothing for them 
except to esteem them, in a general way, as faithful minis- 
ters of Christ; and they, I presume, cared still less for 
me. The Congregationalists, the Baptists, the Methodists, 
the Episcopalians, attracted me much more than Old 
School Presbyterians. They never crossed the threshold 
of our Chi Alpha circle or of Union Seminary. It was the 
prevailing Presbyterian atmosphere of the day. I yielded 
to it, partly from temperament, partly because there seemed 
to be, theologically speaking, " a certain condescension " on 
the part of the Old School, as if its orthodoxy, especially 
as taught at Princeton, was the only standard orthodoxy ; 
and that was not at all to my taste. 

My impression is that this state of things influenced Pro- 
fessor Smith less than it did me. His sympathy with im- 
portant features of Old School theology was, perhaps, 
deeper and more active than mine. And he far surpassed 
me in the feeling that not only was such a state of things 
wrong, but that it ought to be changed just as soon as pos- 
sible. I do not think he had much intercourse with Prince- 
ton ; and later, as is well known, he took decided ground in 
his Review and elsewhere against some of Dr. Hodge's 
views. But nothing petty or partisan was ever allowed to 
enter into the discussion. He was far above such a thing. 
He attended Dr. Hodge's semi-centennial in 1872. and, on 
behalf of Union Seminary, spoke with admiration of that 
great and good man. Here are a few sentences from his 
address on the occasion : 

It is only the accident of my being born two or three 
years earlier that prevents you from hearing some more elo- 
quent representative of our institution, for ice are all here. 
[Applause.] .... For the first time in America, we cele- 
brate to-day the semi-centennial of a professor in a theolog- 
ical institution. It is a matter of sincere congratulation that 



UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 95 

the merit is as incontestable as are the years. To speak on 
such an occasion is embarrassing ; but, after all, this assem- 
blage itself is the great speech of the occasion. All these 
ministers and men gathered from all parts of our land, from 
all parts of the world, are here to do honor to one most hon- 
orable name, to testify to the power and influence of a long 
and noble life consecrated to the highest welfare of our 
country, as well as to the service of the Church of our Lord 

and Saviour Jesus Christ In comparison with such a 

life, I do not know what glory in peace or war can be called 
greater or more worthy of the highest style of manliness or 
manhood. 

There is another circumstance about this celebration which 
we may well emphasize, and that is, that here we meet, as 
we so seldom can, to pay due honor also to theology, to see 
what theology is and means, and how it is needed for the 
highest welfare and true progress of the nation. Literature 
is spoken of every day, and appeals to all. Merely literary 
men live in a popular atmosphere, but theology must be 
studied in comparative seclusion. Its fruits are the fruits of 
mature years, and they come to be known in their full value 
only after a long lapse of time. In behalf of our Seminary, 
then, I would congratulate him whose name is on all our lips 
to-day, for the high honor to which he has been called, and 
for the eminent success vouchsafed to him. • We offer to him 
the expression of our deep and unfeigned esteem and affec- 
tion. May he yet many years live to receive the grateful 
tributes of the Church which he has always loved, and which 
loves him so well. And, above all, may he now and evermore 
be blessed with all spiritual blessings in Jesus Christ our 
Lord! 

Dr. Adams' relations to Princeton, in his later years at 
least, were much closer and more pronounced. To him, as 
we have seen, Princeton was chiefly indebted for whatever 
of good she found in that veto power, which relieved her 



96 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

of the necessity of having her professors elected by the 
General Assembly. The last person outside of his own 
family who saw Dr. Hodge before he departed was Dr. 
Adams. As the latter came to the bedside, Dr. Hodge 
took his hand and held it fast during the whole interview. 
Although too feeble to speak with his lips, by a silent 
pressure of the hand and with expressive eyes the dying 
theologian responded to the assurance how many there were 
who held him in their thoughts and hearts, and to com- 
forting words of Holy Scripture. 

Dr. Hitchcock stood upon substantially the same ground 
as Professor Smith with respect to Princeton. In New 
England he had sympathized rather with the Old than the 
New School of Congregational orthodoxy ; and on coming 
to New York, while entering with loyal devotion into the 
service of the New School, his generous culture, large 
views, and catholic spirit enabled him to do full justice to 
whatever was best in the Old School. I can recall no word 
from his lips, in public or in private, between 1855, when 
he came to New York, and the day of his death, which was 
not most friendly to Princeton. Of Dr. Shedd I might 
use still stronger language, were it needful. 

I am not entitled to speak for my present colleagues in 
the Faculty of Union Seminary. They are quite able to 
speak for themselves. But if a single one of them has not 
a conscience void of offense toward Princeton, the reason 
is unknown to me. The only possible exception would be 
Dr. Briggs, and he is now beyond the sea.* What his feel- 
ings are I can only conjecture by considering what my own 
would be, were I in his place. He no doubt believes, as 
his friends believe, that the veto of his transfer to the chair 

* This paper was prepared last summer, while Dr. B. was 
in Europe. 



UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 97 

of Biblical Theology was, primarily and mainly, the result 
of what may justly be called Princeton influence in the 
Church. Had that powerful influence, whether exerted 
from far or near, been put forth in opposition to the veto, 
or had it only remained quiet, there is no reason to doubt 
that Dr. Briggs would have been spared the stigma which 
the General Assembly at Detroit placed upon his brow. 

But while unable to say what is Dr. Briggs' present state of 
mind with regard to Princeton, I know what it was during the 
ten years in which, as principal founder and senior editor of 
The Presbyterian Review, he came into such intimate rela- 
tions with that seminary through his successive co-editors, 
Drs. Aiken, Hodge, Patton, and Warfield. At his earnest 
request I consented to serve on the executive committee of 
the Presbyterian Be view Association. He consulted me, both 
as a friend and as a member of that committee, year in and 
year out. He talked to me with absolute freedom respect- 
ing the Keview, its policy, his colleagues, and his own plans, 
labors, and trials in its management. He was restrained 
by no fear that anybody would ever know what he said to 
me. 1 do not believe he ever hesitated to give vent in my 
ear to his inmost thoughts, or doubts and suspicions, if he 
had any, about Princeton. And yet as I look back over 
the record in my memory of those ten years I see nothing 
dishonoring to Christian scholarship ; nothing that did not 
betoken a man whose devotion to what he regarded as 
sound doctrine, the best interests of the Presbyterian 
Church, the cause of sacred learning, and, above all, alle- 
giance to the King of Truth, was an absorbing passion. 
Again and again I said to myself, " How this man loves 
to work for his Master and his Master's kingdom ! " To be 
sure, Dr. Briggs did, now and then, say or write things 
about certain features of Princeton divinity and biblical 
scholarship which seemed to me needlessly severe. The 



98 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

tone of his article in The Presbyterian Review on the 
Old Testament Revision and Revisers, for example, I dis- 
liked exceedingly and frankly told him so. Such a tone, I 
said, is against all my convictions as to the right temper of 
Christian scholarship ; it hurts my feelings. And he al- 
lowed me to say this without the slightest sign of irritation. 

But to speak unadvisedly with one's lips, or one's pen, is 
really no new thing in the annals of American Presbyte- 
rianism. Dr. Briggs did not invent it. If, as is charged, 
he has sinned in that line, his sins are venial in comparison 
with those of not a few eminent Presbyterians in the 
eighteenth century and in the nineteenth. How some Old 
and E"ew School men used to " talk back " to each other ! 
And it always did seem to me that, as a general rule, an 
Old School Presbyterian, when once fairly aroused and 
" on the war-path," so to say, left a ISTew School Presbyte- 
rian, however gifted and advanced in that method, far 
behind. I have expressed my honest respect, not to say 
admiration, for Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge. But what 
shall be said of the tone and manner in which he was wont 
to express his mind about his New School brethren — and, 
as for that, his Old School brethren, also, when they dif- 
fered with him— in 1834, 1837-8, at the Philadelphia 
Union Convention in 1867, and in the General Assembly 
at Albany in 1868 ? What could have been more provok- 
ing than his biting criticism upon the noble report of Dr. 
Adams and Dr. Beatty on reunion — a report so seasoned 
with the meekness of wisdom — pronouncing it unworthy 
of the great Presbyterian Church and " deficient in style, 
literature, grammar, and rhetoric from one end to the 
other"! 

The simple fact is, that Presbyterians now and then 
are not only, as they have often been called, the Lord's 
" silly people," but they are also the Lord's fighting people. 



UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 99 

Their Calvinism makes them bold and determined, but it 
tends also to make them somewhat pugnacious and domi- 
neering. They hold a high doctrine of original and in- 
dwelling sin ; and I have wondered whether, in His permis- 
sive will, God did not allow an unusually large share of 
the latter to remain in them in attestation of their doctrine, 
as also to keep down their pride of orthodoxy. 

When I consider what have been Dr. Briggs' services to 
the Presbyterian Church, and to Christian scholarship; 
how far they exceed in variety, amount, and quality those 
of most other Presbyterian scholars of his own day, and 
with what fidelity and devotion he has rendered them, I 
am little in the mood to complain of his faults or to hear 
others do so. As to his relations to Princeton during the 
ten years to which I have referred there is no ground 
whatever, I repeat, so far as my knowledge goes, to speak 
of him otherwise than in terms of respect and praise. 
Upon his severing his connection with The Presbyterian 
Review the sense of his services, entertained by the Keview 
Association, was expressed in the following letter addressed 
to him by Dr. Aiken, under date of Princeton, Oct. 18, 1889 : 

At the meeting of the Eeview Association in New York, on 
"Wednesday last, it was unanimously and heartily voted that 
the thanks of the Association be given to you for the many 
important services which you have rendered the Association 
during the ten years of its history. We recognize your con- 
spicuous and invaluable service in the starting of the Asso- 
ciation and the Review, and, in many ways, in maintaining 
both. We recognize the great benefit we have derived from 
your deep interest in the Review, your indefatigable energy 
and industry, your wide acquaintance with men on both 
sides of the water, your patience in looking after details, and 
your wide outlook over the field which the Review was aimed 
to cover. 

And the embarrassments of various kinds which appear 



100 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

now to have brought to an end the work of the Review, make 
us only the more eager to express to you our sense of what 
we owe you. It was on my motion that this vote was 
passed, — but it needed only the motion to secure the instant 
and unanimous assent of all present. The absent, we are 
sure, would have concurred with us. I was requested to 
communicate with you, freely, without any form of words 
proposed by me, or given me to transcribe. It gives me per- 
sonally real pleasure to be the organ of the Association in 
conveying to you the knowledge of this action. 

The members of the Executive Committee of the Ke- 
view Association at this time were William M. Paxton, 
Charles A. Aiken, Benjamin B. Warfield, Thomas S. Hast- 
ings, George L. Prentiss, and Marvin P. Yincent. 

It is hardly needful to say more of the friendly relations 
of Union to Princeton. On the part of Union, for forty 
years at least, I can testify that, so far as I know, not only 
has no hostile sentiment toward Princeton been cherished 
by her, but habitually and on principle has she abstained 
from saying or doing aught that might stir up jealousy, 
strife, or rivalry between the two institutions. Her record 
in this respect is clear and unimpeachable. Had Union 
Seminary been established a few years earlier, the case 
might have been different. In a letter dated New York, 
June 5, 1827, Dr. John Holt Pice, one of the wisest and 
best men in the Presbyterian Church of that day, writes : 

"While all the brethren appear to regard me with great per- 
sonal affection, neither of the parties are entirely cordial to 
me. The Princeton people apprehend that I am approximat- 
ing to Auburn notions ; and the zealous partisans of New 
England divinity think me a thorough-going Princetonian. So 
it is! And while there is much less of the unseemly bitter- 
ness and asperity which brought reproach upon the Church 
in past times, I can see that the spirit of party has struck 



UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 101 

deeper than I had even supposed. And I do fully expect 
that there will be either a strong effort to bring Princeton 
under different management, or to build up a new seminary 
in the vicinity of New York, to counteract the influence of 
Princeton. One or the other of these things will assuredly 
be done before long, unless the Lord interpose and turn the 
hearts of the ministers. 

Fortunately, Union Seminary was founded nine years 
later, and with no design whatever antagonistic to Prince- 
ton. Such, then, being her record from the beginning until 
now, can it be thought strange that the course of Princeton 
at Detroit was regarded by the friends of Union, in view 
especially of 1870, with most painful surprise % or that 
they felt deeply offended and injured by it % Is it strange 
if it inflicted one of those wounds, that are apt to rankle 
long and are very hard to cure ? "I doubt," writes an old 
and devoted friend of Union Seminary, " I doubt whether 
you fully realize the depth, or extent, of the indignant feel- 
ing which the course of Princeton at Detroit aroused among 
thousands of thoughtful men and women, throughout the 
country. It was, and still is, largely a suppressed feeling — 
suppressed partly, perhaps, by reason of its very intensity 
and in part for the sake of the peace of the Church — but a 
feeling which, you may rest assured, is not going to be al- 
layed by any pious truisms. It is not now the case of Dr. 
Briggs chiefly — that is a mere occasion and passing incident 
— it is the honest conviction that vital principles of Amer- 
ican Presbyterianism, as well as vital principles of justice 
and Christian liberty, are involved, which renders this feel- 
ing so deep and strong. As to Union Seminary, what a 
return she got for her services to Princeton in 1870 ! How 
would William Adams have felt, could he have foreseen 
it ! I do not envy the President of Princeton College his 
part in this matter. "Would his illustrious predecessor, the 



102 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

venerable Dr. McCosh, ever have consented to act such 
part ? It does not seem to me even thinkable. 

" The union of the Old and New School Churches is gen- 
erally regarded as one of the greatest events in the annals 
of American Presbyterianism. "What was the agency of 
Princeton in bringing it about ! Dr. Hodge from first to 
last was its strongest opponent. What was the agency of 
Union in bringing it about ? Henry E. Smith was its fore- 
most leader and advocate. By his memorable sermon at 
Dayton in 1864, by his editorials in The Evangelist, by the 
powerful articles in his Review, he more than any other 
man started, defended, and guided the movement. With- 
out Henry B. Smith and such coadjutors, among the direct- 
ors of Union Seminary, as William Adams, Jonathan F. 
Stearns, Edwin F. Hatfield, and William E. Dodge, I, for 
one, do not believe .Reunion would have been accomplished 
even to this day. It had other very able New School ad- 
vocates, whose services also were invaluable. And without 
such strong friends in the Old School branch as Drs. Beatty, 
Gurley, Musgrave, Monfort, Allison, and many others 
like them, it could not, of course, have been accomplished. 
But so far as reunion was a great blessing to the Presbyte- 
rian Church, the agency of Union in bringing it to pass en- 
titles her, it seems to me, to lasting gratitude ; certainly to 
treatment very different from that of which she has so often 
and in so many quarters been the subject during the past 
six months. Nor is it a small service that Union has ren- 
dered both to the Presbyterian Church and to Christian 
scholarship as a living centre of reasonable theological free- 
dom and progress. ' I am not afraid to say that a new idea 
never originated in this Seminary,' was the remark of Dr. 
Hodge at his semi-centennial. That has never been the 
position of Union. She welcomes all new ideas, that ' swim 
into her ken ' from the word of God or from the vast realm 



THE ACTION AT DETRIOT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 103 

of science. How many new l ideas ' originated in Union 
Seminary in the days of Henry B. Smith ! But I weary you. 
I took up my pen simply to say that the feeling caused by 
the course of Princeton at Detroit, is really deeper and more 
widespread than even you appear to think. I may be 
wrong, but that is my opinion." 

(h). The action at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs 
as an eye-opener. 

The veto of Dr. Briggs was a veritable eye-opener. Its 
instantaneous effect was great ; its ultimate effects are likely 
to be greater. In a moment, as by a flash of lightning, the 
agreement of 1870 was seen, as it had never been seen be- 
fore. It was seen to involve alarming possibilities of harm 
to the Presbyterian Church, to free Christian scholarship, 
and to the cause of theological truth and progress. It was, 
probably, at once the cause and the subject of more anxious 
thought in one week after the vote at Detroit, than during 
all the previous twenty years. That vote revealed it as an 
arrangement full of explosive mischief. Instead of contrib- 
uting to the "peace and prosperity of the Church," by 
promoting mutual confidence and love, it showed itself, 
of a sudden, as a stirrer up of strife and bitterness. It 
proved that the many disadvantages, infelicities, and perils, 
which, to those who took an active part in founding the 
Union Theological Seminary, appeared so serious in the 
election of professors by the General Assembly itself, were 
no less incident to the veto power in the election of pro- 
fessors, when exercised by the General Assembly. In other 
words, the action at Detroit demonstrated that the two prin- 
cipal grounds upon which the veto power had been conceded 
to the General Assembly by Union Seminary in 1870, were 
deceptive and untenable. The evils specially deprecated 
and to be guarded against by the concession of that power 



104 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

have been sprang upon the Church in its very first exer- 
cise. With the best intentions in the world, both the Board 
of directors of the Union Seminary and the General Assem- 
bly greatly erred as to the effects which, sooner or later, 
would be caused by armiug the Assembly with authority to 
forbid, year in and year out, at its absolute discretion, every 
election of a professor in every Presbyterian theological 
seminary in the United States. 

For a time it may have served, as the ninth " concurrent 
declaration " of 1869 had been intended, " to allay the ap- 
prehensions of any who might imagine that the sudden 
accession and intermingling of great numbers [that is, the 
coming in of the New School branch] might overbear those 
who had hitherto administrated these seminaries which had 
been under the control of one branch of the Church. It 
was intended as a measure for the maintenance of confi- 
dence and harmony, and not as indicating the best method 
for all future time." As a measure for the maintenance of 
confidence and harmony during that critical period of tran- 
sition from a divided to a reunited Church, it was, perhaps, 
of use. But time has long since allayed any apprehensions, 
which the Old School might have felt, of being overborne 
in the administration of their seminaries by a sudden acces- 
sion of the New School to equal power in the General As- 
sembly. Old School and New School are obsolete terms. 
And yet who can wonder that, in 1870, some " apprehen- 
sions," if not " jealousy," with regard to this matter still 
existed on the Old School side, especially at Princeton ? 

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States, to return to my point, is a grand and 
powerful religious body. In its own proper sphere it is a 
mighty agency for building up and extending the kingdom 
of God on earth. But it is singularly unfitted to make the 
best possible choice, or to ascertain and forbid the unwise 



THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 105 

choice, of a theological professor. The chances seem to me 
as ten to one that, in all ordinary cases, the choice of a pro- 
fessor in Princeton, or Auburn, or McCormick, or Union, 
or San Francisco, or any other seminary, will be far more 
wisely made by its own board of directors than by a popular 
assembly composed of some five hundred men, living thou- 
sands of miles apart, coining together for ten days, subject to 
numberless misleading influences through ignorance of the 
candidate, and restrained perhaps by only a feeble sense 
of direct personal responsibility in the case. Twenty votes 
in a board of directors, composed, as the boards of our 
theological seminaries usually are, of judicious, experienced, 
high-minded Christian men, stand for more, and are worth 
more, than five hundred votes in General Assembly. Of 
course, the best boards are liable also to commit mistakes. 
No device or method of election can insure against possible 
errors and imperfections of human judgment, whether it 
be the judgment of eight and twenty directors or of five 
hundred commissioners. 

Personally, no man has better reason than I have to speak 
well of the General Assembly in this regard. I myself bear 
its imprimatur as "the standard of Presbyterian ortho- 
doxy." Under the lead of that apostolic servant of Christ, 
Dr. Charles C. Beatty, the first General Assembly of the 
reunited Church, by a unanimous and rising vote, elected 
me to the chair of Systematic Theology in one of its most 
important seminaries ; and upon my declining the call, re- 
elected me with similar unanimity in 1871. Never can I 
cease to feel grateful in remembrance of such uncommon 
kindness and honor ; grateful also in memory of the special 
tokens of personal interest and good-will which I received 
from the layman so distinguished at once for his stanch 
Presbyterianism and his generosity, whose name the Semi- 
nary of the Northwest now bears. 



106 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

I will now proceed to note some of the ways in which 
the action at Detroit, in the case of Dr. Briggs, may be re- 
garded as an eye-opener. 

(1). In disclosing the doubts and scruples respecting the 
agreement of 1870 which existed at the time, but had 
never, so far as I am aware, been made public. I refer 
more especially to Lane Seminary, which, like Union, was 
entirely independent of ecclesiastical control. An extract 
from a letter of the Rev. Henry A, Kelson, D.D., addressed 
to Hon. James R. Cox, of Auburn, and published in The 
Evangelist of June 25th, shows what was done at Lane and 
why it was done. Dr. Kelson was a member of the Joint 
Committee on Reunion, as well as a professor at Lane, and 
is known far and wide as an eminently wise and true man. 
Here is the extract : 

Our Lane Seminary charter made its board of trustees a 
close corporation, empowered to fill vacancies in its own 
membership, and to appoint all professors and instructors, 
who should hold their chairs at the pleasure of the board. Hon. 
Stanley Matthews, afterward a justice of the United States 
Supreme Court, was consulted on the legal questions involved. 
He stated clearly and positively that the board of trustees, a 
corporate body, could not legally delegate any of its powers 

to the General Assembly or to any other body Our 

board of trustees adopted the by-law (as its charter em- 
powered it to do) in words like the following, as nearly as I 
remember : * " Every election of a professor in this institu- 
tion shall be reported to the next General Assembly, and if 
the said Assembly shall by vote express its disapprobation of 
the election, the professorship in question shall be ipso facto 
vacant from and after such veto of the General Assembly; it 
being understood that in such case it is not the pleasure of this 

* I give the resolution of the Lane Seminary board exactly 
as it was passed (Moore's Digest, p. 384). 



THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENEE. 107 

board that such professor shall continue in office" Judge Mat- 
thews said that this by-law, being adopted by the board of 
trustees, could at any time be repealed by the board. The 
board could not divest itself of this power. But as long as 
it should keep that rule on its own book and govern itself by 
it, it would no doubt have all the moral effect which was 
sought for. No one of us imagined that it could have any 
further legal force or effect than was thus denned by that 
competent legal adviser. 

Dr. E. D. Morris, now professor of Systematic Theology 
at Lane, occupied in 1 870 the chair of Church History in 
that institution. Dr. Morris has long ranked among the 
ablest and most judicious writers in this country on ques- 
tions of ecclesiastical law and polity. The Evangelist of 
July 23, 1891, contained a striking article from his pen, en- 
titled " The Compact of 1870." The following are extracts 
from this article : 

The writer does not hesitate to say at this point, that hav- 
ing occasion in 1871 to look into the matter of legality, so far 
as Lane was concerned, he was led to the conclusion that, in 
the eye of the civil law, this compact, excellent as it was in 
intention, was wholly unwarranted. Indeed it was question- 
able in his judgment whether it lay within the constitutional 
prerogative of the General Assembly to accept such a func- 
tion if proffered to it, and the recent experience has appeared 
to him to give some degree of reasonableness to that doubt. 
But on the civil side of the matter, it must be ordinarily clear 
to any student of the charter of that institution, that its trus- 
tees are the sole and only party having, or that can have, or 
gain, any authority whatsoever in the appointment of those 
who, in whatever capacity, give instruction in it. These trus- 
tees are limited by but one condition/that such instructors 
shall be in good standing in the Presbyterian Church. But 
they have no right to go to the Assembly to inquire whether 



108 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

such or such a teacher is in good standing, nor has the Assem- 
bly any power, by mere resolution, to declare the standing of 
any such person to be either good or bad. They might go 
to the records of some presbytery having jurisdiction, and 
inquire whether the person involved was rectus in curia there ; 
but they could not commit to such a body the matter of ap- 
proving or disapproving their choice of him as a teacher. In 
that choice they are absolutely and forever sovereign, with 
no chartered right to delegate their responsibility to, or even 
share it in any particular with any other body whatever. If 
the question were one of financial administration, no court in 
the land would justify these trustees in calling on the General 
Assembly to guide or to control them in the care of the funds 
and properties of that institution, and the same legal princi- 
ple holds no less truly in the exercise of any other part of 
their corporate trust. The board of Lane Seminary is in 
every particular, and at all times, the official authority, and 
there can be no other. 

Such was the view which the writer was compelled to take 
twenty years ago, so far as one of these three seminaries was 
concerned, and the recent discussions have served to make it 
evident that the trustees of Auburn and Union are by the 
charters of those institutions in a very similar position. 
Looking at the matter as one of legal principle simply, to be 
determined judicially, is it not clear that these boards of trust 
could not hand over to a General Assembly a right of ultimate 
control over any of the endowments committed to their keep- 
ing ? And is it not just as clear that they could not ask a 
General Assembly to create any new department, or prescribe 
any change in the methods of instruction, or to choose or 
even nominate a professor for any work within these institu- 
tions? All such matters are committed by law to these 
several boards, and to them alone, in the exercise of their 
corporate sovereignty, and there is ground for the query 
whether their f ailure to exercise such prerogative in the way 
prescribed by their respective charters would not ultimately 



THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 109 

work a forfeiture of the funds intrusted to their keeping. 
No such board could, for example, discharge their corps of 
instructors and close the institution indefinitely, without be- 
coming subject to civil suit, even though it should resolve to 
commit its endowments meanwhile to the care and keeping 
of the General Assembly. And the same principle must 
apply to all their acts. 

Turning from the question of legality to that of expediency 
and desirableness, we enter a field more diificult of discussion, 
yet one where a dispassionate examination will be likely to 
lead thoughtful men into substantial agreement. The com- 
pact is a good one so long as there is no occasion to apply it. 
As a simple expression of good-will and cordial confidence 
between the parties it is admirable. But the moment a case 
arises, in which the judgment of any of these boards of trust 
goes in one direction, and that of an Assembly goes in an- 
other, and the Assembly overrules such board by vetoing its 
action and displacing a teacher, whom, in the exercise of its 
chartered prerogatives and its corporate wisdom, it has 
chosen, there will always be trouble ; it cannot be otherwise. 
If the Assembly acts without giving any reasons, simply in- 
terposing its final negative in the case, it exposes itself at 
once to the charge of arbitrariness, and to those immediately 
affected by its action, that action inevitably savors of a 
tyranny to which any born Presbyterian will find it hard to 
submit. On the other hand, if an Assembly attempts to give 
reasons for its veto, all such reasons must resolve themselves 
into two — the lack of fitness to teach, and the lack of ortho- 
doxy. How difficult it is for an Assembly to adduce either 
of these reasons in support of its decision without precipitat- 
ing serious trouble, will be evident on very slight reflection. 

Suppose the reason to be the lack of fitness to teach, what- 
ever may be the special nature of that lack. At once a 
series of questions spring up, such as the following : What 
constitutes fitness to teach in a theological seminary ? What 
are the special requisites to success in this or that particular 



110 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

department of the theological study? Is the Assembly as 
well qualified as the particular board of trust to ascertain 
whether the person appointed possesses such fitness, and in 
what degree ? Is it right for a board, after it has chosen a 
teacher as the result of the most minute investigation it can 
make, to let its deliberate judgment be set aside by the veto 
of a body every way less prepared to decide the matter 
wisely? "Would it be just to the man himself, if, after he 
and the board had settled the matter, and a call had beem 
presented and accepted, the Assembly should step in, and 
with only such knowledge as a body so constituted would pos- 
sess, should hold him up before the whole Church and be- 
fore the world -as a person incompetent to teach, and unfit 
for the place to which he had been chosen ? 

So serious are such questions that it is doubtful whether 
any General Assembly could be induced to take such a step 
on this ground. The case must be an exceptional one in- 
deed ; and the veto of the Assembly would become not 
merely a remarkable and destructive condemnation of the 
man, but also a verdict of gross incompetency against the 
board who had appointed him. And the case would be more 
exceptional still if the chosen instructor had already been be- 
fore the Church for many years in some similar capacity, 
perchance in the same institution, and the board that chose 
him had acted on the basis of an experimental acquaintance 
with his abilities as a teacher 

But the second ground, the lack of orthodoxy, is a hundred- 
fold more perplexing. Suppose an Assembly should openly 
say, in any given case, We put our veto on this appointment, 
because in our judgment the chosen instructor is not ortho- 
dox, or is heretical, according to our standards. Suppose it 
should vary the statement, and say in a more guarded form, 
We do not condemn this man as a minister, but we do pro- 
nounce his teachings doubtful and dangerous in quality, and 
even heretical, and on this ground declare him unfit as a 
teacher. The Assembly of 1836 has established a precedent 



THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER* 111 

against any declaration of the latter sort, before which it 
would be very difficult to set up valid opposition. The dis- 
tinction between the minister and professor, between the 
man and his teachings, vanishes the moment it is touched. 
It is simply impossible to pronounce the teaching heretical 
without condemning the man also ; and it is simply impos- 
sible to condemn the teacher without pronouncing judgment 
on the minister also. But this is clearly inadmissible under 
our Form of Government. The obvious principle in the case, 
as the precedent of 1836 affirms, is that the Assembly cannot 
do by indirection what it cannot do directly and under con- 
stitutional warrant, and for such a declaration and distinc- 
tion as this there can be no constitutional warrant whatso- 
ever. 

The declaration of the first sort is still more obviously in- 
admissible so long as the Presbytery to which such a teacher 
is amenable, regards and treats him as orthodox. At this 
point the Assembly is powerless. The experience of the 
Southern Church in the case of Prof. Woodrow ought to be 
a sufficient guide and warning here. It is not needful that 
the person implicated be already undergoing judicial exam- 
ination before the only body on earth competent of pro- 
nouncing upon him ecclesiastically. The simple fact that 
he stands unimpeached before that body, is enough to for- 
bid the Assembly from assuming any judicial prerogatives in 
his case. No difference of this sort can be recognized in our 
Form of Government, between one minister and another, 
between a teacher in a seminary and a pastor in his pulpit, 
and any attempt to set up such a distinction can only end in 
trouble. In a word, the Assembly is absolutely precluded 
by our constitution from pronouncing an opinion by mere 
resolution upon the good standing of even the humblest 
minister in our Church. 

The compact of 1870 thus betrays its weakness in what- 
ever aspect it may be regarded. To say the best that can 
be said, the only two grounds on which the Assembly can 



112 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

possibly act under it are doubtful and dangerous grounds. 
It loads the Church with a responsibility which is pleasant 
enough so long as there is no occasion to wield it, but which 
is as certain as fate to bring in trouble wherever there is fair 
room for doubt as to either the capacity or the orthodoxy of 
any candidate for professional service. The experience of 
the current year will inevitably be repeated in every like 
case as long as the compact lasts. Differences of interpreta- 
tion as to its intent and scope will always arise, as they have 
unhappily sprung up in this instance. Diversities of judg- 
ment and more or less dissatisfaction with the result will al- 
ways make their appearance, and whatever may be the effect 
upon the seminary involved, the Church is sure to suffer 
much more than it gains. 

Add to this calm statement that " the compact of 1870 " 
was no legal compact at all, but simply a friendly agree- 
ment, and Dr. Morris' argument becomes irresistible. 

Let us now turn to Auburn. This seminary, unlike 
Lane and Union, was already under ecclesiastical control, 
namely, that of four adjacent synods. Here also there 
was doubt and scruple respecting the legal aspect of the 
agreement of 1870. It was not until 1873 that Auburn 
consented to enter into the arrangement. The following 
was its official action in the case : 

The committee to whom has been referred the question as 
to whether the proposal of the General Assembly to submit 
the election of professors in the seminary to the control of 
that body can be complied with without a change of the 
charter of this institution, would respectfully report, that 
they have carefully examined said charter, and sought legal 
counsel on the subject. They find that the board of com- 
missioners is invested with the sole and ultimate authority 
to appoint its professors, and they cannot legally delegate this 
power to any other body. They are, however, convinced of the 



THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 113 

fact that they may in their primary action make a conditional 
appointment, subject to the approval of the General Assem- 
bly, and that the right of such approval may be accorded to 
and recognized from that body without necessarily interfer- 
ing with their ultimate authority. The committee regard 
the seminary as standing in an organic relation to the Gen- 
eral Assembly through its commissioners, who are themselves 
ecclesiastically amenable to the action of that body, and that, 
therefore, there is a generic propriety in submitting their 
appointments conditionally to its advisory action. 

They further find that it comes within the sphere of power 
accorded to the board by the charter that they make what- 
ever by-laws and regulations they may regard as essential 
for the prosperity of the seminary ; and, therefore, deeming 
it desirable that this institution be classed on an equal basis 
with others of a like character as under the patronage and 
supervision of the General Assembly, the committee would 
hereby present and commend for adoption by the board the 
following by-law, viz. : " That hereafter the appointments of 
professors in this seminary be primarily made conditional 
upon the approval of the General Assembly, and that such 
appointments be complete and authoritative only upon secur- 
ing such approval." — (Minutes of the Board of Commission- 
ers of Auburn Seminary, meeting May 8, 1873.) 

(2). But while at Lane, and, later, at Auburn also, the 
agreement of 1870 between Union Seminary and the Gen- 
eral Assembly excited at the time serious doubt, and was 
adopted only in a modified form upon the advice of able 
legal counsel, the agreement yet met with general acquies- 
cence as a " suitable arrangement." For twenty years it 
remained, as we have seen, quiescent and undisputed. No- 
body challenged either its legality or its expediency, and 
this for the simple reason that the power with which it 
clothed the Assembly was never used. For several months 
before the meeting of the Assembly of 1891, it is true, the 



114 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

veto power was widely discussed in the religious papers, 
but chiefly as to its direct bearing upon the case of Dr. 
Briggs, not as to its legality or its wisdom. Only after the 
action of the General Assembly were men's eyes opened to 
discern its real character. That action, as is apt to be the 
case with all unfair and arbitrary exercise of power, aroused 
thoughtful public opinion in a high degree, and precipi- 
tated, so to say, conclusions and a judgment touching the 
whole matter which years of ordinary discussion could not 
have reached. 

The public reason and conscience, under certain condi- 
tions, give their verdict very quickly, and in a way not to 
be gainsaid. I believe it will prove to have been so in 
the present instance. No arguments are likely to shut 
again the eyes — and their name is legion — which were 
opened so wide by the action at Detroit. Not alone Union 
Seminary and its oldest and best friends, but thousands of 
the best and most discerning friends of Christian scholar- 
ship and reasonable liberty of theological inquiry and teach- 
ing throughout the country, felt that a hard blow had been 
struck at a great interest common and equally dear to them 
all. It would be easy to illustrate the intensity and strength 
of this feeling by numberless testimonies, given in private 
letters and coming from all parts of the Union. I have 
myself read scores of such letters, some of them written by 
men noted for their fine culture, their piety, their zeal for 
the truth as it is in Jesus, and their unusual weight of 
character. Of the public testimonies and protests called 
forth by the action at Detroit, time would fail me to speak 
at length. Two or three only must suffice ; and I give 
them just as they appeared, without, of course, holding 
myself responsible for all they contain. The first is from 
the pen of the Eev. C. H. Haydn, D.D., LL.D., pastor of 
the First Presbyterian Church of Cleveland, Ohio, a man 



THE ACTION AT DETEOIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 115 

whose name stands for whole-souled devotion to the king- 
dom of Christ. Dr. Haydn was a member of the Assem- 
bly at Detroit, and chairman of its Standing Committee on 
Foreign Missions. Of the veto of Dr. Briggs he said, ad- 
dressing his own people : 

Had the Union Seminary acquiesced in this veto, I question 
whether a twelvemonth would have gone by before men in at least 
three other seminaries would have been called to account in one 
way or another, and liberty within the lines of Holy Scripture 
would have had a set-back from which it would not have recov- 
ered in a quarter of a century. Princeton would have tri- 
umphed all along the line, and nothing could well be worse 
than to have Princeton dominate the thinking of the Presby- 
terian Church. Already, to my view, it begins to dawn that 
Princeton's ecclesiastical lawyer has overreached himself, and 
unwittingly aided the very cause that he thought to put 
under the ban of the Church. 

My next extract is from a letter of the Rev. Robert W. 
Patterson, D. D., of Chicago, now past his seven and seven- 
tieth year. Dr. Patterson is a venerated patriarch, as he 
was for more than a generation the New School leader, 
of the Presbyterian Church in the great Northwest. He 
was moderator of the General Assembly in 1859, and was 
also a member of the New School branch of the Joint 
Committee on Reunion. If there be another man in the 
whole Interior who stands higher in the estimate of his 
ministerial brethren, or whose judgment in matters relat- 
ing to the order and prosperity of the Presbyterian Church, 
is entitled to greater weight, I do not know his name. 
Here is what Dr. Patterson says : 

I am distressed about our seminaries. The plan of allow- 
ing the General Assembly a veto on appointments is, I am 
persuaded, unwise. I question with many as to the fitness 
of Dr. Briggs for the place to which he was elected by the 



116 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

Union directors, but I think it very unsafe for the Assembly 
to veto the action of such a board, especially when a trial of 
the professor-elect is pending. It must necessarily be in a 
great measure a prejudgment of the judicial case. And in 
most instances of veto, a judicial case will be likely to follow 
or to be actually pending. 

Besides, it is not clear that in ordinary cases the Assembly 
is as competent a judge as a well-selected board. Moreover, 
if the Assembly were the more competent body, it could not 
fail to awaken dangerous antagonism for it to exercise such 
authority. It is not like a veto of a nomination / it is a veto 
of an appointment, so far as the board can make one, and it 
is, therefore, an injurious judgment against the professor- 
elect and also against the board electing. 

And, still further, it is likely to create a wide sympathy for 
the injured parties, and give currency to the very errors 
which it was designed to prevent. This is evidently so in 
the present case, in which grossly partisan action has been 
taken. The proper check upon unwise appointments is the 
discipline of the Church, if serious errors are taught by the 
appointee. The New School Church never lodged any veto 
power in the Assembly. Such power ought not now to be 
continued ; it is virtually the trial of a man without process 
and without forms of law. Not one quotation from Dr. 
Briggs was made in the debate at Detroit, so far as I heard, 
and no reasons were given in the final judgment. This was 
monstrous. 

Along with this emphatic expression of opinion I will 
quote some passages in the same strain from a private letter 
of Dr. Patterson : 

I have not liked Dr. Briggs' utterances, especially the tone 
of them. But I regard the action of Princeton in the mat- 
ter as a startling illustration of the grievous injustice that 
will always be liable to be done to a professor-elect and to a 
seminary, so long as the power of v eto remains with the A 



THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 117 

sembly. It is a sort of lynch-law condemnation on technical- 
ity, without trial and with no reasons responsibly alleged, but 

with utterly untrue reasons implied or assumed I see 

no escape from a like injustice in any case where a veto can be 
plausibly demanded. First, get up a clamor, and then have 
a one-sided committee appointed to report that something 
must be done at once, or the Assembly will be held as ap- 
proving, and give no reasons, leaving every man to sustain 
the report for his own reasons, or on the ground of his own 
prepossessions. This is a receipt for crushing out any and 
every appointee that happens to incur popular displeasure on 
a question about which the Church is sensitive. How easy 
to apply the guillotine in every such case ! and if the candi- 
date for decapitation cannot be easily answered on the main 

points, the motive is greater to dispatch him by votes I 

have written simply because I feel like it. I do not agree 
with Dr. Briggs on some important questions, but I would 
not, if I could, overrule the directors in regard to any such 
question, and no more would I concede this right to the 
Assembly. We cannot afford to have our able men brushed 
aside by popular clamor, even if on some points they may 
have gone too far. If they become heretics, let their heresy 
be judicially proved. But let not the Assembly prejudge indi- 
rectly its future disciplinary action. The day has passed for 
settling critical questions by votes of councils or assemblies. 
But it is possible to distress and distract a whole denomina- 
tion for a generation by attempting this impossibility. The 
numbers will increase of those who will say with Dr. Van 
Dyke : " If we cannot have orthodoxy and liberty both, let 
us have liberty." 

I will give one more testimony and protest. It is from 
a letter of the Rev. S. M. Hamilton, D.D., addressed to 
Dr. Field, editor of The Evangelist, and dated Louisville, 
Ky., June 5, 1891. Dr. Hamilton for more than half a 
generation was pastor of the old Scotch Church in Fourteenth 



118 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

St., New York, where he won the confidence, respect, and 
love of his ministerial brethren and of all the churches by 
his charming personal qualities, by his fine scholarship, and 
by his solid Christian character and services : 

The outside public have received a very definite impres- 
sion that our highest ecclesiastical court has acted unfairly 
and unjustly towards one of our foremost Biblical scholars. 
The issue will not increase the respect of the world for the 
Presbyterian Church. She has suffered immensely more than 
Dr. Briggs. Thoughtful men are saying — I have heard them 
— that our Church will not allow her scholars to make a thor- 
ough study of the Bible by the modern scientific methods 
unless they first bind themselves to come to no conclusions, 
save such as are acceptable to a certain theological school in 
the Church. Such an impression — and it exists and is spread- 
ing — is calamitous, not to the Church only, but to religion it- 
self. Add to this the feeling which is abroad, that the Assem- 
bly has condemned an eminent professor without assigning 
any reasons therefor, and on the report of a committee not a 
member of which was a friend of the professor or of Union 
Seminary, and the injury to the reputation of our Church 
cannot be calculated. 

I have been on terms of intimate friendship with Dr. 
Briggs for years. I have lived with him, I have walked the 
mountains with him, I have talked with him for hours together, 
and I say deliberately that he has done more to make the Bible 
a real living book to me, the true Word of God, than all other 
ministers and teachers I have known in the whole course of 
my life. His friendship is one of the things for which I shall 
always have reason to be thankful. In my judgment Dr. 
Briggs is the most inspiring teacher of the Bible our Church 
possesses. No vote of any Assembly can impair his reputa- 
tion among the Biblical scholars of Christendom. 

(3). The action at Detroit was an eye-opener with regard to 
the unwisdom of trying to regulate theological opinion and 



THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 119 

teaching by popular vote. The instant the attempt is actually 
made, its futility is demonstrated. I doubt if the vote at 
Detroit really moved theological opinion a hair's breadth. 
Nor will it be at all more effective in the matter of theolog- 
ical instruction. Unless further enlightened respecting 
divine truth by deeper study and fresh inspirations of the 
Eternal Spirit, Princeton, and Union, and Lane, and all the 
rest, will continue to teach in 1892 what they taught in 
1890. As aforetime, they will take counsel of Holy Scrip- 
ture and of the venerable standards of the Presbyterian 
Church, as also of the old creeds of Christendom. They 
will still read diligently the writings of the great masters of 
divinity, whether of ancient, or medieval, or later ages ; they 
will try to discern the signs of the times ; and they will exer- 
cise themselves in working out more fully their own honest 
thought. But they will take very little note of what was said, 
or voted, on the subject at Detroit. When in 1845, at Cin- 
cinnati, the Old School General Assembly, led by some of 
the strongest men in that branch of the Presbyterian Church, 
decided by a vote of 173 to 8 — a majority not of 7 to 1, as at 
Detroit, but of more than 20 to 1 — that what was called 
"Romish Baptism" is spurious and unchristian, Dr. Charles 
Hodge of Princeton, in spite of the brilliant Dr. Thorn well, 
and of Dr. L. ~N. Rice, and of Dr. Junkin, and of nearly 
the whole Assembly, not only went right on teaching his stu- 
dents the old Protestant view, but he attacked the decision 
of the Assembly as wrong in fact and false in doctrine, 
demonstrating, with most cogent reasoning, that, notwith- 
standing her errors, the Church of Rome is still a branch 
of the Christian Church, and that baptism duly adminis- 
tered by her, is Christian baptism. Dr. Hodge knew very 
well that if such questions were to be decided by a majority 
vote in a popular assembly, instead of being decided ac- 
cording to the truth of history and the voice of Scripture, 
the occupation of the theological professor is well-nigh clean 



120 UNION" SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

gone forever. This veto power is like one of those terrible 
pieces of new ordnance of which we have read lately so much. 
It is not only a most formidable instrument for destroy- 
ing an enemy, but of self-destruction as well, unless handled 
with consummate skill. Setting five hundred men, mostly 
untrained for the task, to firing it off all together, even un- 
der the direction of an ecclesiastical expert, is extremely 
dangerous and against all the lessons of even worldly pru- 
dence. 

Do I mean, then, that it is no function of the Presby- 
terian Church to bear faithful witness against prevalent er- 
rors in doctrine and practice, or, if necessary, in the way of 
godly discipline, to put upon them the stamp of her cen- 
sure and condemnation ? No, that is not my meaning. It 
seems to me one of the highest functions of a church of 
Jesus Christ to bear constant, earnest witness for Him and 
His truth, and to put the mark of her strong disapproval 
upon all errors contrary thereto. This is one great end for 
which the Church exists in the world. When she ceases to 
be a witness-bearer and the enemy alike of false doctrine 
and evil practice, her glory is departed. The question is : 
How shall she best fulfil this duty ? And here there is need 
of the wisest discrimination, of large experience, of the 
amplest knowledge, of much self-restraint, and of Christian 
justice, candor, and magnanimity in their finest expression. 

It is far from my meaning, I repeat, that the Presbyterian 
Church, or any other church of Christ, is not bound to hold 
fast to the faith once delivered to the saints ; to stand up 
for soundness both of doctrine and morals; to bear wit- 
ness against error ; and to be very jealous for the honor of 
God and His inspired oracles. No church can here exceed 
the measure of her duty. Nor do I in the least question 
that the Presbyterian Church, in the performance of this 
solemn duty, may often speak and act most effectually 



A WORD IN CONCLUSION. 121 

through the voice and votes of the representative assembly. 
The popular voice and vote, thus expressed, is a ruliug 
principle in our American system of republican govern- 
ment; and it is a ruling principle no less in American 
Presbyterianism — the source in large measure of its won- 
derful elasticity, freedom, and working power. Nobody 
shall surpass me in admiring it and its splendid achieve- 
ments. 

But alike in the civil sphere and in that of religion there 
are some things, which in their very nature, belong to the 
domain and jurisdiction, not of the many, but rather of the 
select few. There are questions in the civil order which 
the judges of the land, not the legislators, alone are author- 
ized and competent to decide. And so in the religious 
sphere there are matters which only learned divines and 
scholars — specially trained, chosen, and set apart for the 
purpose — are qualified to pass judgment upon. Such, for 
example, are many of the questions raised by what is called 
the higher or literary criticism of the Bible. ~No popular 
vote, however honest rnd intelligent, can decide them ; nor 
are ordinary scholars, however learned, competent to decide 
them. They must be decided, if at all, by the ablest sort 
of trained minds, just as there are questions in law, in 
finance, in every department of science, which only experts 
of the highest class are qualified to settle for us. 

{i). A word in conclusion. 

I have thus endeavored to consider the action at Detroit 
in the case of Dr. Briggs in its bearing upon Union Semi- 
nary and upon the Presbyterian Church. It has been my 
aim to tell the truth, so far as possible, and nothing but the 
truth. And it has been my aim, also, to do this in a frank 
and Christian way. Certainly, it would have been much 
easier to write in a freer style. If my language savors now 



122 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 

and then of severity, or even ridicule, it is because the truth 
seems to me to demand such language. No reasonable man 
could have supposed that the friends of Union Seminary 
were going to keep silent, or that when they did speak they 
would speak with bated breath. If trained in no special 
awe of a General Assembly, they do stand in awe of God 
and His truth, of Christian justice, and of that glorious 
liberty wherewith their divine Master has made them free. 
What then, in view of the whole situation, ought to 
be done ? It is not for me to answer this question further 
than to say, that, in my opinion, it is high time for the 
alumni and friends of Union Seminary to come to a good 
understanding among themselves, to act in concert, and to 
adopt such measures as shall give the whole world assurance 
of their determination to join hands with the Board of 
directors and Faculty of Union Seminary in maintaining 
the character, honor, and chartered rights of the In- 
stitution. 

Whatever prejudice or suspicion against Union Seminary 
prevails in the Presbyterian Church is, as I believe, largely 
the effect of ignorance or misapprehension. Union Semi- 
nary stands firm on her original foundations as an institu- 
tion of Christian theology in the service of the Presbyterian 
Church and of the Church Universal. Taking the inspired 
Word of God as her rule of faith and practice, she is striv- 
ing in all things for the faith and furtherance of the Gos- 
pel ; first in our own land, and then over all the earth. These 
are her ambitions, and she has no other. With every other 
school of divinity, of whatever name, she desires to keep 
step to the music of the whole church militant in fighting 
the battles of truth and righteousness, here and everywhere. 
Especially does she desire to march and fight in fellowship 
with all other seminaries of the Presbyterian Church. She 
is ready to say to them, in the words of Henry B. Smith, 



A WOED IN CONCLUSION. 123 

— words penned before the reunion, but still fresh and true 
as ever : 

Let us advance with open brow to meet the greater ques- 
tions which are fast advancing to meet us. Let us not make 
so much account of Old School and New School ; and even 
if we believe the substance of the Old is better, let us not 
deny that the earnestness, the philosophic spirit, the advanc- 
ing movement, the wider aims of the New, are of inestimable 
good. Who can so afford to be patient as the orthodox, 
who know that the right faith will in the end surely triumph. 
Let us eschew the arts of intrigue, of defamation, and innu- 
endo. These are easily learned. They are the offspring of 
fear or of hate. They show a timorous or a dogmatic spirit. 
Let us not deny until we understand, or insult feelings be- 
fore we know their reason, for it is easier to be extreme than 
to be candid, to denounce than to examine. In the spirit of 
love and wisdom let us maintain cogency of argument, energy 
of faith, and urgency of zeal. 



APPENDIX. 



THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EDWARD ROBINSON CHAD? OP BIBLICAL 
THEOLOGY. 

At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the 
Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, held 
November 11, 1890, the following preamble and resolution 
were adopted by a unanimous vote : 

Whereas, The Honorable Charles Butler, LL.D., President of the 
Board of Directors of this Seminary, has made provision for a perma- 
nent fund for the purpose of establishing and endowing a chair in 
this Seminary, to be called the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical 
Theology : 

Now therefore, Resolved, That a new professorship shall be and 
is hereby created, which shall be called the "Edward Robinson 
Chair of Biblical Theology"; that the income of the endowment of 
one hundred thousand dollars given to this Seminary by the said 
Charles Butler in the manner mentioned in his bond, dated April 25, 
1890, shall be applied solely to the support of said chair, according to 
the provisions of said bond. 

The President of the Faculty suggested that the Board, in 
courtesy, should ask Dr. Butler to express to us freely his 
wishes with reference to the action just taken. 

Thereupon President Butler addressed the Board of Direct- 
ors as follows : 

" The formal establishment by the Board of ' The Edward 
Kobinson Chair of Biblical Theology ' fulfils the object de- 
sired in the provision which I have made for its endowment. 
I beg to express my satisfaction and gratitude for this action. 
It is in accord with the views of the distinguished Christian 
(124) 



APPENDIX. 125 

scholar in whose memory the chair is founded. In a letter to 
the Board, dated January 20, 1837, accepting the Professorship 
of Sacred Literature, he said : * The Constitution properly 
requires every Professor to declare that he believes the Scrip- 
tures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of 
God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. This is 
placing the Bible in its true position as the only foundation 
of Christian theology. It follows as a necessary consequence 
that the study of the Bible, as taught in the department of 
Biblical Literature, must be the foundation of all right the- 
ological education.' This new Chair of Biblical Theology 
seems to me to realize the sentiment embodied in this quota- 
tion, in a form which, if he were now present with us, would 
receive his benediction. It embalms his memory indissolu- 
bly with the life of this Seminary, and will ever be an inspi- 
ration to its students in their ' search of the Scriptures/ 

" In regard to the incumbent of this Chair, I avail of the 
courtesy of the Board to express my wish that it may be one 
who sat as a pupil at the feet of that eminent teacher, and I 
regard it as a felicity to the Seminary that there is one here 
who has been trained within its walls, and who, by his ripe 
scholarship and purity of character in Christian faith and 
practice, has won the confidence and affection of his associate 
Professors, of this Board of Directors, and of the students 
who have come under his teaching during these years of 
faithful and devoted service. 

"From what I have said, you will anticipate that my 
wishes will be fully gratified in the appointment of the Bev, 
Charles A. Briggs, D.D., as eminently qualified to fill this 
Chair. In this expression of preference, it gives me the 
greatest pleasure to say that I do but voice the views and 
wishes of our late revered President of the Faculty, Koswell 
D. Hitchcock. Dr. Briggs was his choice for this Chair. 

" I cannot doubt that the highest interests of this Semi- 
nary, and, what is more, those of the Kedeemer's kingdom 
on earth, will be promoted by this realization of the plans of 



126 APPENDIX. 

these two Christian scholars, both as regards the foundation 
of the Chair and the selection of the suggested incumbent/' 

THE APPOINTMENT OF THE INCUMBENT. 

At the conclusion of President Butler's address, Henry 
Day, Esq., offered the following resolution, which was unan- 
imously adopted : 

Resolved, That Professor Charles A. Briggs, D. D., be transferred 
from the Davenport Professorship of Hebrew and the Cognate Lan- 
guages to the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology. 

Professor Briggs, having been duly advised of the action 
above recorded, addressed a communication to the Board, 
under date of January 7, 1891, accepting the new Chair to 
which he had been transferred. It is as follows : 

120 West 93d St., New York, 
January 7, 1891. 

Gentlemen of the Board of Directors of the Union Theological 
Seminary, New York: 

I thank you for the mark of confidence expressed in your 
choice of me to fill the Edward Eobinson Professorship of 
Biblical Theology. There is no Chair that so well suits my 
tastes and my studies for the past twenty-five years. Under 
the advice of the Faculty, I have been building up the depart- 
ment of Biblical Theology for some years past. But I had 
reached the limit of new work. I could not advance further 
until relieved of the Hebrew work. In accepting the new 
Chair, I propose to push the work of the department rapidly 
forward, and to cover the whole ground of the Chair at as 
early a date as possible. I give over the work of the Hebrew 
Chair to my pupil, colleague, and friend, Dr. Brown, with 
confidence, that building on the foundations I have laid, he 
will make marked improvement upon my work. 

Biblical Theology is, at the present time, the vantage ground 
for the solution of those important problems in religion, doc- 



APPENDIX. 127 

trine, and morals that are compelling the attention of the men 
of our times. The Bible is the "Word of God, and its author- 
ity is divine authority that determines the faith and life of 
men. Biblical scholars have been long held in bondage to 
ecclesiasticism and dogmatism. But modern Biblical criti- 
cism has won the battle of freedom. The accumulations of 
long periods of traditional speculation and dogmatism have 
been in large measure removed, and the Bible itself stands 
before the men of our time in a commanding position, such 
as it never has enjoyed before. On all sides it is asked, not 
what do the creeds teach, what do the theologians say, what 
is the authority of the Church, but what does the Bible itself 
teach us ? It is the office of Biblical Theology to answer this 
question. It is the culmination of the work of Exegesis. It 
rises on a complete induction through all the departments of 
Biblical study to a comprehensive grasp of the Bible as a 
whole, in the unity and variety of the sum of its teaching. 
It draws the line with the teaching of the Bible. It fences 
off from the Scriptures all the speculations, all the dogmatic 
elaborations, all the doctrinal adaptations that have been 
made in the history of doctrine in the Church. It does not 
deny their propriety and importance, but it insists upon the 
three-fold distinction as necessary to truth and theological 
honesty, that the theology of the Bible is one thing, the only 
infallible authority ; the theology of the creeds is another 
thing, having simply ecclesiastical authority ; and the theol- 
ogy of the theologians, or Dogmatic Theology, is a third 
thing, which has no more authority than any other system of 
human construction. It is well known that until quite recent 
times, and even at present in some quarters, the creeds have 
lorded it over the Scriptures, and the dogmaticians have 
lorded it over the creeds, so that in its last analysis the au- 
thority in the Church has been, too often, the authority of 
certain theologians. Now, Biblical Theology aims to limit 
itself strictly to the theology of the Bible itself. Biblical 
theologians are fallible men, and doubtless it is true, that 



128 APPENDIX. 

they err in their interpretation of the Scriptures, as have 
others ; but it is the aim of the discipline to give the theol- 
ogy of the Bible pure and simple ; and the inductive and 
historical methods that determine the working of the depart- 
ment are certainly favorable to an objective presentation of 
the subject, and are unfavorable to the intrusion of subject- 
ive fancies and circumstantial considerations. It will be my 
aim, so long as I remain in the Chair, to accomplish this ideal 
as far as possible. Without fear or favor I shall teach the 
truth of God's Word as I find it. The theology of the Bible 
is much simpler, richer, and grander than any of the creeds 
or dogmatic systems. These have been built upon select por- 
tions of the Bible, and there is a capriciousness of selection 
in them all. But Biblical Theology makes no selection of 
texts — it uses the entire Bible in all its passages, and in every 
single passage, giving each its place and importance in the 
unfolding of divine revelation. To Biblical Theology the 
Bible is a mine of untold wealth ; treasures, new and old, are 
in its storehouses ; all its avenues lead, in one way or anoth- 
er, to the presence of the living God and the divine Saviour. 

The work of Biblical Theology is conducted on such a 
comprehensive study of the Bible, that while the Professor 
builds upon a thorough study of the original texts, his class 
must use their English Bibles. A thorough study of the 
English Bible is necessarily included in the course. If the 
plan of the work is carried out, the student will accompany 
his Professor through the entire English Bible during his 
Seminary course, and will be taught to expound a large num- 
ber of the most important passages in the light of all the 
passages leading up to them. 

In conclusion, allow me to express my gratitude to the 
venerable President of the Board of Directors for the interest 
he has ever taken in my work, for the honor he has shown 
me in nominating me for the Chair he so generously founded, 
and for attaching to the Chair, with such modesty and consid- 
eration, the name of Edward Bobinson, my honored teacher, 



APPENDIX. 129 

the greatest name on the roll of Biblical scholars of America, 
and the most widely known and honored of her professors. 
I shall regard it as my high calling and privilege to build on 
his foundations, and to advance the work that he carried on 
as far as it can be advanced in the circumstances of our time. 
The names of Edward Robinson and Charles Butler will be 
entwined into a bond of double strength to sustain me in the 
delicate and difficult work that I now undertake to do. 

Faithfully, 

C. A. Briggs. 

n. 

THE INAUGURATION. 

Tuesday Evening, Jan. 20, 1891. 

President Charles Butler, LL.D. presided. After devo- 
tional exercises, at the request of Mr. Butler, the President 
of the Faculty made a brief preliminary statement, as 
follows : 

"As has been announced, last May the President of the 
Board of Directors of the Union Theological Seminary, 
Charles Butler, LL.D., provided for the endowment of a new 
Chair in the sum of $100,000. 

" On the basis of this munificent gift, at the recent meet- 
ing of the Board, the new Professorship was formally estab- 
lished, to be known, in accordance with the request of Pres- 
ident Butler, as The Edward Robinson Professorship of Biblical 
Tneology. This was designed by Mr. Butler to be a memorial 
of his long-time friend, the late Edward Robinson, D.D., 
LL.D., the first Professor of Sacred Literature in this insti- 
tution, who honored that Chair and this Seminary by his long 
and distinguished service from 1837 to 1863. 

" The President of the Board suggested that it would be 
in accord with his own wishes and with those of his friend, 
the late President Roswell D. Hitchcock, D.D., LL.D., if the 
Board should transfer the Rev. Professor Charles A. Briggs^ 



130 APPENDIX. 

D.D., to the new Chair just established. By a unanimous 
Tote the Board at once adopted the suggestion of their Pres- 
ident, and transferred Professor Briggs from the ' Davenport 
Chair of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages ' to the ' Edward 
Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology.' Dr. Briggs, having sig- 
nified his acceptance of this transfer, his inauguration will 
now take place." 

President Butler addressed Professor Briggs as follows : 

" On behalf of the Board of Directors, and in accordance 
with the Constitution of the ' Union Theological Seminary in 
the City of New York,' I call upon you to * make and subscribe ' 
the * declaration ' required of each member of the Faculty of 
this institution." 

Thereupon Professor Briggs made the 'declaration' as 
follows : 

"I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be 
the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; 
and I do now, in the presence of God and the Directors of this 
Seminary, solemnly and sincerely receive and adopt the Westmin- 
ster Confession of Faith, as containing the system of doctrine 
taught in the Holy Scriptures. I do also, in like manner, ap- 
prove of the Presbyterian Form of Government ; and I do sol- 
emnly promise that I will not teach or inculcate anything which 
shall appear to me to be subversive of the said system of doctrines, 
or of the principles of said Form of Government, so long as 1 
shall continue to be a Professor in the Seminary." 

Thereupon President Butler said : 

" In the name of the Board of Directors, I declare that 
Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., is inaugurated as the 
Incumbent of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical The- 
ology. 

" On behalf of the Board of Directors, the Charge to Pro- 
fessor Briggs will now be delivered by the member of the 
Board duly appointed for this service, — the Kev. David E. 
Frazer, D.D., the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of 
Newark, N. J." 



APPENDIX. 131 

the charge. 

My dear Brother Briggs : 

Before attempting to discharge the duty which, by your 
kind consideration, has been devolved upon me, permit me 
to tender my heartfelt congratulations : First, upon the estab- 
lishment of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theol- 
ogy ; a consummation so devoutly wished for alike by your- 
self and by our revered Hitchcock. We all share in your 
joy, and recognize the new departure as a long and a right 
step in advance in the history of our Institution. 

In the orderings of God's providence every age has its 
own peculiar problem to solve, the solution being wrought 
out from the standpoint of its own pressing needs. It is a 
marked characteristic of our day that the Bible is now studied 
as never before in the world's history, and the establishment 
of this new department is in the line of this development, and 
is answerable to this modern demand. For, if I understand 
aright the function of Biblical Theology, it does not conduct 
a simple, grammatical exercise ; it does not discuss the vari- 
ous textual readings ; it does not study the opinions of the 
Fathers or the deliverances of the Church ; it does not for- 
mulate a body of systematic divinity grouped about some 
chosen central principle. These are important and legiti- 
mate topics of study, hence are properly cared for in our 
curriculum. They will doubtless be very helpful as external 
aids in the prosecution of the work of this Chair, but the 
peculiar province of Biblical Theology is to study the Word ; 
to determine what God intends to say in His Word, and then 
to formulate these hallowed teachings. 

Such being its province, I need not pause to show that 
Biblical Theology is the normal response to that modern 
critical spirit which refuses to accept anything upon the 
basis of authority, and insists upon tracing everything back 
to its genetic principle and its efficient cause. Neither need 
I tarry to discriminate sharply and accurately between the 



132 APPENDIX. 

functions of Biblical and Systematic Theology. If you, my 
dear brother, have any especial interest in or desire for in- 
formation on this general subject, I would respectfully refer 
you to a work on " Biblical Study," which is published by 
the Scribners, and was written by one who has served long 
and well in, and has just been transferred from, "the Dav- 
enport Professorship of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages " 
in this Institution ; and, if you are not acquainted with the 
work, I can assure you that the time spent in its perusal will 
not be wasted, for you will find therein an admirable and 
exhaustive discussion of the subject. 

But I want to congratulate you, secondly, upon the fact 
that you are to be the incumbent of the new Chair, a position 
for which you are pre-eminently qualified by reason of the 
peculiar character of your past studies. I am very well 
aware that you would much prefer to have me discuss the 
general topic of Biblical Theology, and to dwell upon the 
claims it has to a place in our curriculum, rather than to 
hint the name of, or make any reference to the Professor who 
is to occupy the new Chair. But if anything of a personal 
character should be said, please remember, my brother, you 
have no one to blame save yourself, since, passing by abler 
men, you have kindly insisted that your old friend and class- 
mate should deliver the Charge, as you enter upon the awful 
responsibilities of your new position. And as the class spirit 
asserts itself, I will say, despite your unspoken protest, that 
the class of '64 is proud of its representative ; that it rejoices 
in your well-deserved success, and that it appropriates to it- 
self a peculiar glory by virtue of the events of this hour. 
Little did we dream, when we sat at the feet of that honored 
man whose name gives dignity to your new Chair, as also at 
the feet of those other scholarly and godly men, Henry B. 
Smith, Thomas H. Skinner, Boswell D. Hitchcock, and Henry 
H. Hadley, men whose presence was a benediction, whose 
instruction was an inspiration, whose memories are revered 
and hallowed, that there was among us, going in and out 



APPENDIX. . 133 

just as we went in and out, one who was destined to sit in 
Gamaliel's seat and to honor the exalted position by his 
scholarly attainments. Yet such was the fact, and although 
you wish I would not say it, still, as your classmate and on 
behalf of the class thus signally honored, I tender you our 
warmest and heartiest congratulations. 

And I propose saying still further, since I betray no confi- 
dence by the declaration, that it would have greatly rejoiced 
your heart and would have wonderfully inspirited you for 
your work could you have heard the cordial, tender, and ap- 
preciative words with which our venerable and venerated 
President of the Board of Directors (who is also the kind 
and generous patron through whose munificence the new 
Chair has been endowed, " Serus in coelum redeas"), placed 
your name, the only name placed in nomination for the 
position. 

And I am sure you would have been more than pleased 
could you have witnessed the unanimity with which the 
Directors ratified the nomination and transferred you from 
the Davenport Chair of Hebrew to the Edward Eobinson 
Chair of Biblical Theology. I congratulate you that the 
honored and revered Founder of the department wanted you 
in the department which he founded, and also upon the fact 
that you enter upon your new work in the enjoyment of the 
fullest confidence, respect, and love of the Directors of this 
Seminary. 

But I may not forget that this is your hour. Inasmuch 
as I cannot hope to impart any instruction respecting the 
peculiar and practical duties of your new position, I would 
be content to let these congratulatory words take the place 
of the more formal charge. In order, however, to meet the 
requirements of my appointment, and to stir up your pure 
mind by way of remembrance, I charge you : 

First. To have clear, well-settled, and accurately defined 
views of the nature, the scope, and the design of the Holy 
Scriptures. 



134 APPENDIX. 

The Bible is to be your text-book, and the Bible claims to 
be the book of God. If this high claim cannot be main- 
tained ; if the Bible be not the book of God, as verily as 
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then is it unworthy of our 
confidence. That Word which was in the beginning with 
God and was God, and which in the fulness of time began 
to be flesh, was, as the Incarnate Word, the God-man, very 
God and very Man. We do not understand this " great mys- 
tery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh." We do not 
attempt to explain it, but we accept it, we believe it, we rest 
our hopes of life, here and hereafter, upon it. And upon 
this same basis we can accept the Word written. It also is 
an incarnation. Great is the mystery of Eevelation, God 
manifesting His thought in the forms of human speech. 
Since holy men of old spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost, the Divine and human elements are co-ordinated 
in the Word written as well as in the Word Incarnated. We 
must recognize the Divine and human factors in the Scrip- 
tures, and assign a legitimate place to each and to both, but I 
need not charge you, my dear brother, to bear in ceaseless 
remembrance the fact, that just in the proportion that the 
Divine element is eliminated or is abnormally subordinated 
to the human, is the authority of the Bible circumscribed 
and the power of the Bible abridged. You will never forget 
that you have God's Word for your text-book, and you will 
never fail to teach it as the very Word of God. 

The scope of Biblical instruction is clearly set forth on the 
sacred page. Great mischief is often wrought by the notion 
that the Bible aims to cover the whole sphere of human 
knowledge, and that its authority is lessened by the conces- 
sion that there are some things which can be comprehended 
without its aid. We surely do not need the Bible to teach 
us that two and two make four, or that the whole is greater 
than any of its parts. The Holy Word has a distinct mission 
and a definite aim. It does not come to us as a teacher of 
physics or of metaphysics, but as a revelation : as a revela- 



APPENDIX. 135 

tion of God : as a revelation of God to man : as a revelation 
of God to man concerning the highest and the dearest moral 
interests of man, alike for time and for eternity. It comes 
to man, not primarily to reason, but to reveal, and to reveal 
those high themes, which, by necessity of being, transcend 
the ordinary processes of human thought. While pervaded 
with an air of simplicity and honesty and truthfulness, it 
comes not primarily to persuade, but to command, and to 
command, not in view of the deductions of human reason, or 
in the light of conclusions reached by the processes of a 
speculative philosophy, but upon that simple, yet sublime, 
basis, " Thus saith the Lord God." 

The design of Revelation is summed up essentially in the 
Johannean statement, "these things are written that ye might 
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that be- 
lieving ye might have life through His name." As all roads 
led to Home, so all Scripture leads to Christ. The poetry, 
the prophecy, the precepts, the biography, the history of the 
Bible, find their true centrality in Him who was at once dust 
and Divinity, the Workman of Nazareth, the Prophet of 
Galilee, ' The Lamb of G6d which taketh away the sin of 
the world/ The final end and ultimate design of the Holy 
Scriptures are " to make wise unto salvation, through faith 
which is in Christ Jesus "; hence it is your business, my dear 
brother, from the Word written to educe the Word Incarnate, 
and I beg you to so present Jesus Christ to all who come 
to you for instruction, that they may go from your class-room 
to their great life-work, not only impressed with an abiding 
sense of the matchless beauty and the mighty power of that 
Divine Saviour concerning whom the Scriptures so abun- 
dantly testify, but also, and as the normal outcome of your 
teachings, with a fixed determination "to know nothing 
among men save Jesus Christ and Him crucified." 

But Paul forewarns " of things hard to be understood," of 
problems which must perplex the most acute mind and defy 
the grasp of the most profound intellect. Furthermore, in 



136 APPENDIX. 

the interpretation of the Word, conflicting views respecting 
the exact significance of the revelation will arise. Who shall 
decide when learned doctors disagree ? To whom shall the 
ultimate appeal be taken ? Manifestly to the Spirit of the 
Living God by whom the declaration was prompted, and to 
whom the meaning is clear ; hence, I charge you, 

Secondly, Seek the aid of the Holy Ghost in your arduous 
and responsible work. 

I attempt no solution of the mooted question as to whether 
our Lord's promise that the Holy Ghost should lead believers 
in "the way of all truth," was restricted to the Apostolic 
College, and was literally fulfilled in the written revelation, 
or whether it pertains to believers in all time. 

But the Scriptures most clearly require that all believers 
should "live in the Spirit," " walk in the Spirit," "be filled 
with the Spirit." Christian consciousness bears witness that 
the abiding presence of the Spirit begets deep and vital 
spirituality, and Christian experience abundantly confirms 
the assertion that vital spirituality ensures a large insight of 
that truth which must be spiritually discerned. A willing- 
ness to do God's will must precede the knowledge of the 
doctrine, and this willingness of mind and heart must be be- 
gotten by the Holy Ghost. Pat peculiar honor upon the 
Divine Spirit and He will put peculiar honor upon you and 
your work. He will open your eyes to behold the wondrous 
things in God's law ; He will give you the witness of His 
presence in your own soul, and will enable you, in all meek- 
ness and humility, yet with the highest Christian positiveness, 
to say : I know whom and what and why I have believed, 
and am persuaded that my confidence rests not upon the 
wisdom of man, but upon the wisdom of God. 

And as you thus teach the Word of God under the guid- 
ance of the Spirit of God ; as day by day you present the 
truth as it is in Jesus to those who are to preach a cruci- 
fied Redeemer to dying men, may the Lord bless you and 
keep you ; may He equip you for duty, help you in the dis- 



APPENDIX. 137 

charge of it, and when your great work is finished may His 
" Well done " be pronounced upon His " good and faithful 
servant." 

in. 

RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUSTAINING DR. BRIGGS, 
AS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 19, 1891. 

Resolved, That this Board has listened with satisfaction to 
the categorical replies rendered by Dr. Briggs to the questions 
submitted to him, and that it trusts that the manner in which 
he has therein dealt with the points that are in dispute will 
operate to correct the misapprehensions that are so widely 
current, and to quiet the disturbed condition of mind in 
which, as a communion, we are so unhappily involved. 

Resolved, The Directors of the Union Theological Seminary 
desire to express to Professor Briggs their high appreciation 
of his Christian courtesy in the consultations which he has 
had with the Committee of Inquiry in reference to the trying 
questions now under consideration. 

They will stand by him heartily on the ground of this re- 
port, and affectionately commend him to the leading of a 
common Master, having perfect confidence in his honesty of 
purpose. 

E. M. Kingsley, John Crosby Brown, 

Recorder. Vice-President. 

New York, May 19, 1891. 

rv. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACULTY OF UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

In view of the general comment and discussion called 
forth by the recent Inaugural Address of Professor Charles^ 
A. Briggs, D.D., the undersigned, members of the Faculty 
of Union Theological Seminary, deem it their duty to make 
the following statement : 

"With the conviction that Christian courtesy, modesty, and 
mutual respect for difference of opinion should characterize 



138 APPENDIX. 

theological controversy, we distinctly recognize and depre- 
cate the dogmatic and irritating character of certain of Dr. 
Briggs' utterances in his Inaugural and in others of his 
writings : while, on the other hand, we do not recognize, 
even in these, any warrant for persistent misrepresentations 
of his views, and for the style and temper in which he has in 
many cases been assailed. 

I. — The views propounded by Dr. Briggs in his Inaugural are 

not new. 

They have all been stated by him in one or another of his 
published works, in articles in the Presbyterian Review, dur- 
ing his ten years' editorship, and in more recent contribu- 
tions to other periodicals. Moreover, for the past ten years, 
Dr. Briggs has been teaching Biblical Theology in the 
Seminary, and has been expounding to successive classes of 
students the statements for which he is now arraigned. The 
present excitement is, as we believe, due, largely, to the tone 
of the Inaugural Address, to certain unguarded expressions, 
and to an impression that the transfer of the author to the 
Chair of Biblical Theology would be subject to the veto of 
the General Assembly. 

II. — The address contains, in our judgment, nothing which can 
be fairly construed into heresy or departure from the West- 
minster Confession, to which Dr. Briggs honestly subscribed 
at his recent inauguration. 

(a). His words concerning "Bibliolatry " are not aimed at 
humble and devout reverence for the Word of God, but at 
the error, rebuked by the Apostle Paul, of revering " the 
letter " above " the spirit." 

(&). Dr. Briggs declares that, conjointly with the Bible, 
the Church and the Reason are sources of authority in re- 
ligion. He uses the term " reason " as embracing the con- 
science and the religious feeling. We object to the term 
" sources," since there is but one source of divine authority 
— God himself. We prefer to say that the Bible, the Church, 



APPENDIX. 139 

and the Reason are media and vehicles through which we 
recognize and receive the divine authority. This is the 
generally-accepted Protestant position. Every Church in 
Christendom admits that the Church is a medium of divine 
authority. 

The Confession of Faith declares that " unto the catholic, 
visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and 
ordinances of God." 

That the reason, in the broad sense in which it is explained 
by Dr. Briggs, is also an organ to and through which the 
divine authority is conveyed, is assumed in Scripture and in 
the Confession, and is the necessary postulate of a divine 
revelation to man. It is the only point in the natural man 
to which the qualities of God's character, the operations of 
His power, and the right-reasonableness of His claims can 
appeal : and it is distinctly declared and assumed by St. 
Paul to be the recipient of such appeals ; to be the subject 
of the divine Spirit's illumination ; and to become thus the 
proper instrument for discerning, comparing, and judging 
spiritual truth. If the reason has no such function in re- 
ligion, it is superfluous to assert that " Scripture is profitable 
for teaching, for discipline, and for upbuilding in righteous- 
ness." Spiritual righteousness implies an intelligent and 
rational perception and reception of the law and truth of 
God. The living sacrifice which is "holy and acceptable 
unto God " is a "rational service." 

But Dr. Briggs does not, with the Romanist, exalt the 
Church above the Bible and the Reason. He does not, with 
the Rationalist, place the Reason above the Bible and the 
Church. Neither does he, as has been often charged, co- 
ordinate the three sources. His position is the Protestant 
and the Presbyterian position, assumed in his subscription to 
the declaration of the Confession, that the Scriptures are 
" the only infallible rule of faith and practice," and asserted 
in his address in the words : " Protestant Christianity builds 
its faith and life on the divine authority contained in the 



140 APPENDIX. 

Scriptures." That Protestant Christianity too often depre- 
ciates the Church and the Eeason is an entirely distinct 
statement, involving a question of fact ; and the statement 
and its discussion in no way affect Dr. Briggs' endorse- 
ment of the Protestant doctrine of the supreme authority of 
Scripture. 

To assert, as has been so often done, that Dr. Briggs is 
aiming to undermine the divine authority of Scripture, is 
preeminently unfair. Not only this Inaugural, but all his 
published writings, teem with the most positive and uncom- 
promising expressions of love and reverence for the Bible. 

(c). The consistency of Dr. Briggs' position as to the supreme 
authority and divine quality of Holy Scripture, is in no way 
affected by his views of the nature of Inspiration. 

While asserting the plenary inspiration of Scripture, he 
denies that inspiration involves absolute inerrancy — literal, 
verbal accuracy, and perfect correspondence of minor details. 

In this view there is nothing original or new. It is the 
view of Calvin, and of an overwhelming majority of Prot- 
estant divines in Europe and America. It was propounded 
at least eight years ago by Dr. Briggs in his "Biblical 
Study." 

Inspiration, in the sense of literal inerrancy, is nowhere 
claimed for Scripture by Scripture itself. 

It is contradicted by the contents of Scripture in the form 
in which we have it. It involves, logically, a minute, specific 
divine superintendence of each detail of the entire process 
of transmission — copying, translating, printing — and the pre- 
vention of all errors. It confronts those who maintain it not 
only with discrepancies of statement in the present text, but 
with the innumerable textual variations in the Hebrew and 
Greek Bibles, and the variations between the Hebrew and 
the Septuagint. To meet these facts with the assertion of 
the inerrancy of the original autographs, is to beg the whole 
question in dispute, to lay down a purely arbitrary, a priori 
hypothesis, and to introduce into the discussion an entirely 



APPENDIX. 141 

irrelevant factor, seeing that the errors and discrepancies re- 
main and the original autographs cannot be recovered. 

To make the inspiration of Scripture turn upon verbal in- 
errancy is to commit the Church to an utterly untenable 
position, and to place her apologists at the mercy of cavillers 
who are only too glad to evade broader and deeper issues 
and to shift the discussion to the region of mere verbal de- 
tails, where they are sure to have the best of the argument. 

Dr. Briggs holds and teaches the doctrine of the divine in- 
spiration, infallibility, and authority of the Holy Scriptures in 
all matters of Christian faith and duty, which is all that any 
evangelical divine is bound to maintain on that subject. 
The Westminster and other Confessions of Faith clearly and 
strongly assert the fact of divine inspiration, but wisely ab- 
stain from denning the mode and degrees of divine inspiration. 
The former is a matter of faith, the latter of human theory, 
on which there must be liberty if there is to be any progress. 
To impose upon a Christian teacher any particular theory of 
inspiration not sanctioned by the Bible itself, is tyranny. 

(d). Dr. Briggs is further charged with a departure from 
the Westminster Eschatology in teaching progressive sanctifi- 
cation after death. 

While we are not to be understood as accepting or endors- 
ing Dr. Briggs' conclusions on this point, it is sufficient to 
say that he is here in an open field, where, having expressly 
repudiated the doctrines of future probation, universal 
restoration, and the Bomanist purgatory, he is certainly en- 
titled to the largest liberty in the attempt to elucidate a 
subject so little understood, and on which the standards are 
open to differences of interpretation. The phrase " progress- 
ive sanctification after death " admits of a sound and ortho- 
dox interpretation ; but Protestant Eschatology, as defined 
in the Confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries, is gener- 
ally admitted to be defective and in need of further develop- 
ment within the limits of that caution and reserve imposed 
by the comparative silence of Scripture on that mysterious 



142 APPENDIX. 

period between death and resurrection. In the words of the 
late Henry B. Smith, written not long before his death : 
" What Bef ormed Theology has got to do is to Christologize 
predestination and decrees, regeneration and sanctification, 
the doctrine of the Church and the ivhole of Eschatology." 

III. After years of familiar acquaintance with Dr. Briggs 
and his teaching, we are moved to utter our emphatic pro- 
test against the spirit and language with which, in so many 
cases, he has been assailed. If, in any of his writings, Dr. 
Briggs, as is charged, has wantonly offended the honest con- 
victions of good men, or has in any other way sinned against 
the ethical code of Christian scholarship laid down in the 
New Testament, it is not our business to defend him therein. 
He must answer for it to his own conscience and to God. 
But in the public discussion of matters of opinion, it is nei- 
ther right nor decent that an earnest, learned, devoted scholar 
and faithful teacher, even though mistaken, should be at- 
tacked with virulence, contemptuous flippancy, and imputa- 
tions of unworthy motive. In too many instances it seems 
to have been assumed that all the sacredness of personal con- 
viction is upon one side ; that a higher critic can have no 
convictions or rights which the lower critic or the uncritical 
censor is bound to respect ; and that the fact of his differing 
with them justifies his opponents in laying aside in discus- 
sion the character of Christian gentlemen. 

"We know Dr. Briggs to be an earnest Christian, a devout 
student of the Bible, an indefatigable teacher and worker, 
and one who holds the standards of the Church with an in- 
telligence based on an exhaustive study of their history and 
literature. The numerous testimonies of his students during 
seventeen years prove that he inspires them with a deep 
reverence and enthusiasm for the Bible. 

In like manner we protest against the matter and temper 
of the assaults on Union Seminary. By its history of over 
half a century, by the character, standing, and services of its 
graduates, and by the amount and value of its contributions 



APPENDIX. 143 

to Christian Literature, this Institution should be insured 
against such assaults. Its value to the Presbyterian Church 
needs no demonstration. From the days of Edward Bobin- 
son, the pioneer of Palestine exploration and the founder of 
American Biblical Lexicography, Union Seminary has stead- 
ily pressed forward on the lines of advanced Biblical study. 
Its Professors, in subscribing to the Westminster standards, 
have always been understood to do so with the concession of 
that measure of freedom which is the right of every Chris- 
tian scholar. They honor the venerable Confessions of past 
ages, but they place the Bible above the Confessions, and 
hold themselves bound, by their loyalty to Christ and to His 
Church, to follow the truth whithersoever it maj lead them. 
We assert and must insist upon the liberty exercised by 
the Keformers and by the early Church, to discuss the 
Scriptures freely and reverently and to avail ourselves of all 
the light which may be thrown upon them from any source. 
It is in the interest of God's truth to set forth Scripture as 
it is, and not to expose its friends and teachers to humilia- 
tion and defeat by claiming for it what cannot be substan- 
tiated. In the words of Ullmann, " Not fixedness nor revolu- 
tion, but evolution and reform, is the motto for our times." 
We maintain that human conceptions of the Bible and of 
its inspired teachings are subject to revision. To grasp the 
results of deeper research, and to apply them with caution, 
reverence, and boldness to the examination of Scripture is 
not only our privilege, it is our solemn duty in the discharge 
of the sacred trust committed to us by Christ and His 
Church. More light is yet to break from God's Word. We 
would be found ever upon the watch-towers to catch and to 
transmit its rays. No theological school can take any other 
attitude without neglecting its duty to the present age and 
losing its hold upon the rising generation of Biblical students. 
That such a method may dissipate or modify certain tradi- 
tional views as to the origin or date of the Books of Scrip- 
ture ; that it may expose and correct certain long-established 



144 APPENDIX. 

errors of interpretation ; that it may modify certain theo- 
logical dogmas, is only what is to be expected from similar 
results in the past. But we have no fear for the Bible. 
The Word of God will come forth from the fire of reverent 
criticism as fine gold, with a new accretion of testimony to 
its divine origin, and a new power of appeal to the world. 

(Signed), 

Thomas S. Hastings {President), 
Philip Schaff, 
George L. Prentiss, 
Marvin R. Vincent. 

(Professor Francis Brown is at Oxford, superintending the publica- 
tion of his Hebrew Lexicon.) 



THE AGREEMENT 



BETWEEN 

UNION SEMINARY AND THE GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY. 



A CHAPTER SUPPLEMENTARY TO " FIFTY YEARS OF THE UNION 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 



BY 



GEORGE L. PRENTISS, 

Professor in the Institution. 



NEW YORK: 
ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY, 

38 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET. 



a^>4 






3> 



: 



9' 


, 


^>^> 


i 




>^> _ 


> > 




5> 




>> 


JB 




>3 


V 




» 



7> -^>> > j^ -> 






^ ^ <> ^ 












» ■ 



■ 

1 

m 









>> JK> J> J> 






>5 3> 






) >" x 


— » 


> >> 


2 ^> 


> 




x> 


> 


:■ ■> 




;j^> 
o ■> 


>1 


t» 


:><> 


>d 


:> > 


y^> 


> > 


>» 




>>:> 




• >? 




> J>> 




> IX> 




> » 




> "X> 




► >} 




^? 


■ 


>> 




>^ 




J>> 




:>? 




^ 


"-*» X- 


>> 


i "> 


3?> 


c ^ 


:*> :- 


i 



J>3 ) -; 



>> 



»s>3 > 

33 ) 
33 ) 

>3 3 

■-> 3» > > 

>3 ) vv 



» 

3e> 
33 
33 

> x> 



^ > 59 V, >V3> X> 

^ 3> 3 >? J>3 3> 
^> 3 > o 3> 

t>33 » >>33 3^ 

3>3> 3 J> ±>3> 

:j* > > i • > .:■ :j y 
> 3 3 ■) 3 3 3 ' > : 
- ~> . • > ->> > >. 
3 > -> ^3 3 

~> ) O 3 '33 3 

> 3 "X> 33 3 

3> >3 3 33 > 

> ' ■ £> 3 3 ? 

V ) ^33 1 

3 o >>-S3i> 3 



} 3 3 3 



> :> £?:>">;> 



:ra>3 '■■■"> 3e> 



> 3 33 



33 3 33 312*5 

> > •-> 3 3 »3^ 3 

^ 33~>3> SO£> 

3 :> 3 3 3 > 



^1 



> 3 

> "3> 

333> 
333 



o q»33 > 3 
33 ^> > > > 

;3>3» 3 . 

>3>312P 33 3 

■ 3 >33 3 > : 

Ym ^& 

^> > 33>> 3»jS 

3 3333 3- 
, 1)3XD3 






n? > v ) 

O "> 3> l» :> • 
:> ^> >^o >_■ 

) ' > >3» -o> 

) • 3 : 3> O'J) 
>. > OD> » > ^ 

> j> ::> 3r - 

> > J>C3 






5V 



55> > 3> 



>> >3 3 V> ' 
» 533 ^ ^> ■ 

)0 3 3 3 >? ) 3 , ; 

»2> 3 >T> 2))) 3" 
3) 3 33 1803 

^> > >^ 3 > y 

D ~>1^ ^33 )> 

3 3^>3>)>> 



3_>»^ ^ >3 

3^ JJ3 ;J)3 
3> V>3 >J» 

^>^> 3333 
3>^> ^3 ^ >25> 

>> '3 ^ ' o 
>3 33 3> > !> 
X> )3 33 3 

>3 3> 3 



^' 3 
> 3> 



3> f>> 
\> 
^> 
^33 W> 
j>3^> 

> y 

_>? 
y ^ jjp 

33 »"" 

■ 33 "^V 

) 33 33T 



m> 3^ 
m> 3^ 



3 V33 

-* -> >3 : 



3> 33: 

33 33 



33 3g>3 



'33 333?W^ 

» )JU>3J 
.3 332S>7>) 
3 33>2>3m 
'3 >J>3I> 3' ' 
:> 3^^3 3» ^ 



33 3> 

.3 33 

''3 3^0 3>33 

3 ■ > mr> > -•■■ s> , 

)3j3 »3 -_ 
3,3333 >v^ 



y&& 33 



3>3> 
3 3?- \; 

333 \_ 
;.> .»■ - 
3 3: ; 
j3 3 



33 1>3 
33 33 ?j 

►3 3£> 1> 

>3 ,33 3 
>3 3>3 

■ ^ » n 

3 32> J 

.'33: 

Jt 3>3> 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Ilillllllllltb 

022 168 961 6 



li 



